An open letter to Skinner (POSTED IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN FORUM)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Dear Skinner:


I respectfully submit that the jury system is broken and when a jury is comprised of eighty five percent of the followers of one candidate, sitting in judgment of those whose candidate is supported by the other fifteen percent, or are undeclared, there are bound to be injustices, ergo:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1243011


A poster called my dear friends, Bravenank and 1SBM, the N-word and 1SBM re-posted it verbatim. And for that he gets a hide. That is a grave injustice and an abomination.

I chose to bring it to your attention, here and now, because in the immortal words of Dr. King "...we can't wait."

Thank you for reading,

Respectfully,

DemocratSinceBirth

[The Polack MSgt]

1. Kick and

I regret that I can only rec once

[TheBlackAdder]

207. I have issue with this from a literary perspective, hiding the offense aids & abets the offender!

.



Now, hear me out on this.



When someone uses the N-Word for malice, those who call them out should be able to use the word in its entirety, without presenting it as 'N-Word' or 'n****r.' When news agencies and websites mask that word, they are also diminishing the power of that word, by hiding it, and it thereby diminishes the effect on the person who used the word to harm others. Instead of seeing the word in a stark and direct presentation, it is transformed into an alias which requires decoding. While that decoding is minimalist in effort, it buffers the impact of that word's use.



So, from a literary stance, if a person uses the word, they should be called out with the entire word to evoke the harmful power it connotes. Masking the word, to prevent others from being 'offended' actually tempers the offense of the word.



1StrongBlackMan & Bravenak should be able to call out this person without the fear of censorship!


It was wrong for that post to be censored and 1StrongBlackMan should get that hide reversed!


Hopefully, I expressed myself properly.





.

[redwitch]

224. I agree!

Reading that post was like a punch in the stomach. If 1StrongBlackMan wanted everyone to see it it should have been left.


I hate serving on DU juries and have been considering removing myself from the jury pool.

[JRLeft]

396. I agree 100%

[stonecutter357]

2. K&R!

[stonecutter357]

3. has the jury reached a verdict ?

[MrWendel]

4. I am going...

to rec the shit out of this.

[mwrguy]

5. That is unsat as hell

K&R

[uponit7771]

6. WHAT........ THE ............. HELL!!! Skinner... sup mane? this is getting very bad...

[roguevalley]

27. outed rapists were allowed to stay even when skinner

Was alerted. I have no hope for this post.

[PatrynXX]

206. one thing that DU3 has that isn't a good thing

is the anti demcratic Jury system with zero appeals.

[uponit7771]

7. K&R again

[MrWendel]

8. I wonder...

if it gets rectified or swept under the rug.

[leftofcool]

9. Please rectify this, Skinner

[IdaBriggs]

10. Perhaps a MODERATOR OR HOST APPEAL PROCESS might help?

Or ask for established members of this forum to sit on an "Appeal the Ruling" panel, with pledges to be neutral/work for the betterment of the forum.

Trolls die quickly and wouldn't hit the Appeals process, but maybe some of the Alert Stalking could be addressed?

There are some reasonable decisions made by juries (I have served on quite a few), but we do get some of the vendetta issues and/or multiple hides when someone goes off the rails that could be handled better, in my opinion.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. There has to be a review and appeals process because it is and has been primarily POC

that have been attacked viciously.

I agree wholeheartedly!

[IdaBriggs]

58. Timing: I just got a (in my opinion VERY LAME) hide. I made my suggestion

prior to the hide. I would TOTALLY be appealing right now!

[randys1]

156. I was just reading some responses to 1strong, jesus christ there are a TON of bleeps

around here

i cant say the word, this is not a safe place for liberals to talk

[gollygee]

11. I think I read that they are planning to make some changes to the jury system

So he might be aware of this. But yeah it isn't really working. If people could be mature adults it might, but people let maturity slide sometimes.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. My posts have also been hidden. Hell, I've been put on probation due to the number of hides

and it seems that the moderators don't do anything to intervene on behalf of the black posters here.

I've written emails to Skinner; they're never acknowledged. Does he check his email?

I had been a paying member of DU for years. I stopped submitting donations because of this.

This should be pinned at the top of the forum until the Moderators see it and act!

[Chemisse]

81. We don't have moderators anymore.

The hosts don't have the power to intervene in any way.

Possibly you just meant to say 'administrators.'

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. Yes. The administrators.

[wilt the stilt]

145. same thing happened to me

I have been called an antisemite and it just passes. then when I get dissed then i answer back and i am out on probation. i also stopped paying.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

155. I call on all POC and other marginalized groups who have been disrespected to hurt 'em in the pocket

No more donations. Maybe that'll get Skinner and the administrators to start listening to us.

Just an idea...

[romana]

165. Agree!

When I was the lone juror calling out a racist post shortly upon my return to DU I vowed never to give another penny to this site. Not while racist garbage like that is not only allowed to stand, but excused.

[steve2470]

14. I wish I could rec this a billion times....

Skinner has something in the works for after the primary season. I hope he fixes it or discards it entirely. That latest hide on 1SBM was HIDEOUS. Totally hideous.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

104. No. We need something done about this NOW, Skinner. Don't wait until after the primaries.

By then it'll be too late!

People are being harassed, disrespected, even threatened due to this primary season discord.

We need change now or I fear that the Democratic Party might suffer from lack of enthusiasm and discord throughout the election season.

[steve2470]

106. yes he needs to act now, I agree!!! nt

[Stellar]

15. I thought Skinner was an automated person, as he has never responded to me. nt

[Number23]

132. That kind of says everything that needs to be said

And it's pretty freaking sad.

[DhhD]

214. Skinner made replies in an OP just this morning. n/t

[Stellar]

282. Oh, so he pics and choose...

Was it in the AA group where he responded?

I still think he's an automated character. I've been waiting since last March...if not longer.

ETA: Maybe Skinner is behind and he will be getting to me ASAP.

[brer cat]

16. I hope he reads this DSB.

Well stated. I truly understand that the admins cannot possibly review the results of every jury decision but in very extreme situations...and this is one of the worst...they need to step up and say "this just isn't right." I think a workable mechanism would be to allow the group hosts to appeal to the admins when something is totally off.

Thanks for making this effort!

[retrowire]

17. I'm glad the AA group hasnt banned me

so that I can also knr this thread and give a hearty WTF IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE.

was the originator punished at all????

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. He was PPRD.

[retrowire]

25. ... What is PPRD? My apologies. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. The person lost his or her posting privileges? /nt

[retrowire]

30. Well that's good at least.

What about 1SBM?

EDIT: SHHH I just noticed he's posting RIGHT BELOW ME. *facepalm* lol

[steve2470]

281. Posting Privileges Revoked nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. But the random racist troll is the least of DU's problems ...

the 5 DUers that saw fit to vote to hide is reason to give disgusted pause.

BTW, I don't accept that the jurors voted in error, i.e., didn't read or mis-read the post, as there is enough traffic on the subject for them to have seen it, and posted an "Oops, I screwed up", either on the board or via PM; but, none have.

So I am left with, either: they agree with the originator's comment; or, there is particular animus towards me (and Bravenak).

[retrowire]

34. Agreed. Hard to excuse.

I've seen alot of words here, but the N-word is enough to illicit further examination of the alerted posts. So, I can't see why anyone would participate haphazardly in that jury of all juries.

I'm sorry you got a hide for that bullshit 1SBM.

[Mister Ed]

59. I'm afraid I have to agree.

Last night, I was clinging to the hope that the jurors had just been falling over themselves in a rush to get the offensive words that you quoted off of the site, without understanding that the words were not your own.
But just as you say, if that were the case, then at least one of those jurors should have surfaced by now with an apology and an explanation.
And, just as you say, this broken jury system must change. DU juries must not be allowed to become cyber lynch mobs.

[klook]

151. "Disgusted pause" is right... blecch

First of all, I'm sickened that anybody posted that original piece of garbage, and very sorry you (and everybody else) had to see it.

And anybody voting to hide your post objecting to it should be placed on a MIRT watch list.

Bernie Sanders supporter here, standing up for a fellow DUer under DUress.

[thesquanderer]

158. re: "I don't accept that the jurors voted in error"

You're only talking about 5 people. One of them, #6, clearly objected to the contents of the post without trying to understand why you posted it. That leaves a maximum of 4 people, and is certainly possible some or all of those reacted the same way. Heck, look at post #21 and its reply post #76... that's two people in this very thread who looked at the post and said they would have hidden it, i.e. misunderstanding the actual issue at hand, even while we're actually discussing it, and just reacting viscerally to that hateful post.

and you continued, "there is enough traffic on the subject for them to have seen it, and posted an 'Oops, I screwed up' "

As far as I've noticed, there is NOT a ton of traffic on this. Until this thread, the only time I saw any reference to this was the thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027616063 which has been locked. I don't know if there are others, but for that one at least, you'd have to count on one or more of those four jurists having been on DU today, in the hours that that thread wasn't locked (for visibility), having that thread be close enough to the top of one of their scanned lists for them to see it, having them be intrigued enough by the title of the thread to click on it, in order to have the a-ha moment you're looking for. Not every jurist is on here every day, much less every few hours, nor necessarily clicking on threads that are not easily visible and/or obviously within their specific sphere of interest. I'm moderately active and get a few jury requests a week, but I'm sure I see only a minority of the OPs, and read only a minority of the ones I do see.

(As an aside, jurists are people who are online at the time who have NOT participated in the thread. To some extent you are actually selecting for people who might not be so inclined to click on threads on this topic!)

Your explanation elsewhere, "The title heading '155. Captured for posterity. Bye Bye.' might have been a give away. ...don't you think?" is, I believe, not nearly the giveaway you think it is. It is a hint, yes. But the alert system in this case simply presented a HIGHLY offensive post. You're counting on the jury member to take note of the unusual subject line, take the time and effort to give it more thought (and perhaps click-through), to see if they have a reason to not act on their initial impulse.

One of my complaints about alerts is that, so often, the alerter makes comments about the poster's past history or other comments in the thread... my feeling is that that's generally irrelevant (and is usually an attempt to persuade people to hide something that would otherwise be unlikely to be hidden). The way I usually look at it: There's a post in front of you. Does it break TOS or does it not? Honestly, if I had been on that jury, I might have just seen the contents and hit Hide myself, thinking that even with an odd subject line, there's nothing that could possibly rationalize posting that drivel. Sometimes, all you're going to get is a 10-second "knee jerk" response to an alert, and in that case, I would expect people to say Hide upon seeing something like that.

I think you may also be assuming that every jurist took note of the poster's name, and recognized the person behind it (you). For some of us, that would be another clue that "this isn't what it seems at first glance" - but I would not assume that of every possible jurist, either.

[thesquanderer]

176. Oh, right, I forgot about the alerter. So that's 5...

...since from jurist #6's comment, s/he seemed to be addressing the actual writer of those words, not your re-posting of them.

I'm also reminded of the maxim, not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence, etc. I just think you're expecting a lot of the jurists who saw that post. I think most people's first impulse on reading the post would be to hide it, and one would have to take things a step or two further to decide to let it stand.

I also think someone else here had a point, about whether someone necessarily gets a free pass at posting something offensive, just to point out that someone else posted something offensive. I see why you'd want to; I also see why people might not automatically think it's just fine to do it. But it might have helped if you'd included more of your own context in the body of that post, to make your point more immediately clear.

[1StrongBlackMan]

180. Funny ...

I'm also reminded of the maxim, not to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence, etc.

I'm reminded of this:

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mc32d29d0df50491782e0f198069080a2H0&w=79&h=108&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2

But that's Okay!

[7962]

232. TOTAL bullshit hide. And FIVE -2??

Wonder what the post count was for the REAL offender?

[1StrongBlackMan]

234. Less than 20. eom

[SCantiGOP]

19. The jury system is broken

I bet a majority of jurors look to see the favorite forum of a poster before ruling on their post. It simply is not working.
Many of the supporters of "one of the candidates" (if I say which side I might get hidden) increasingly remind me of someone that shows up at your door with a Bible determined to save your soul: they are convinced they are right and that you are a worthless sinner who should be flogged if you don't agree.

[wryter2000]

78. Amen

I wish I could rec a reply.

[Stand and Fight]

182. I've often been called to Jury Service...

I've over a 90% chance to serve on a jury if I'm online. I've never once looked up anything about the alerted poster. I instead read through the thread and get a sense of the context. This is the case even when I know the person supporters a candidate or position I'm opposed to. Just my two sense, but I do agree with your premise that the jury system is broken -- mostly because of what the OP said.

[stonecutter357]

20. Skinner i stand with 1SBM,

[Gothmog]

118. I also stand with 1SBM

[marble falls]

283. I stand with 1SBM and bravenak.

[Depaysement]

21. When I serve on a jury I vote to leave almost every post alone

But not that one.

[navarth]

76. Yeah that would be an easy hide.

I've run into race-baiting assholes more than once, and made sure I let them know they could go fuck themselves before they disappeared. One guy called me a 'white guilt wimp' which I thought was just fucking charming.

Other times I get called racist for disagreeing with somebody. That's also charming.

[SusanaMontana41]

90. I have a high bar, as well. nt

[NurseJackie]

22. It's no longer a tool for peer reviewed civility ... It's a weapon that ...

... is being gamed for revenge and to silence the minority. Time to fix it. Time to take action.

[blue neen]

57. Exactly.

[Cha]

418. Precisely, Jackie. Thank you.

[BlueMTexpat]

23. I am proud to stand

with DSB's submission.

Also ...

[wildeyed]

24. It is one thing to stalk and hide supporters of another

candidate. That is a bad thing. That is a wrong thing. That is a thing I do not like. But no one is 'born that way' when it comes to choosing a candidate, so I am ok with the admins waiting to deal with that issue after the primary is decided.

But white posters stalking and hiding black posters for advocating for policies from their black perspective? That is next-level wrong and should not be tolerated one more minute. I like the idea of tapping some of the regulars from this forum to be part of the review process on bad hides that appear to be retaliation, but don't know enough about how the moderation works on this site to make really good recommendations.

[nxylas]

29. I wonder if the hide was aimed at the original comment

I wasn't on that particular jury, but I could easily imagine seeing that, not realizing that 1SBM was simply drawing attention to abuse that had been directed at him, and voting to hide that abuse

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Sorry. I'm not buying that ... There post that was hidden was ...

1StrongBlackMan This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

155. Captured for posterity. Bye Bye.

Stop whining

You annoying, narcissistic, self-absorbed nigger. You and Bravenak should just get a room and leave the rest of us alone. When are you people going to learn that not everything is about you? Get over yourselves.

The arrogance and entitlement of blacks is breathtaking. What are you still doing in this country if it's so bad? Africa is waiting for you.

A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Mon Feb 15, 2016, 06:46 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

So, NO! ... I don't accept that the jurors voted in error, i.e., didn't read or mis-read the post, as there is enough traffic on the subject for them to have seen it, and posted an "Oops, I screwed up", either on the board or via PM; but, none have.

So I am left with, either: they agree with the originator's comment; or, there is particular animus towards me (and Bravenak).

[morningfog]

49. Does anyone have the jury results? This result is unacceptable and I have a hard time

believing that 6 (counting the alerter) DUers meant to hide your posts and didn't realize you had quoted the words on the previous poster.

It should be rectified regardless.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Here ...

On Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Captured for posterity. Bye Bye.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1243011

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Reposting an already removed post.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Feb 15, 2016, 08:46 PM, and voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Reposting an already removed" To the alerter: Thank you for a fine example of alert stalking. When I get the results, I'll make sure to send your alert to the admins. I'll look for you in the name removed category. Toodles.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: pretty naked alert stalking against 1StrongBlackMan. It would be a real shame if a majority of the jury takes the bait.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Are you kidding? Posting this here? PPR may be warranted.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[morningfog]

70. Okay, the alerter clearly was in the wrong. But, it looks like Juror # 6 was confused.

It seems they thought you were the person who made the comment.

Jurors ## 2, 4, 5 and 7 didn't comment, so who knows their motivations.

The alerter should be looked into by the admins. The Hide should be reversed due to Juror #6. The mark on you record should be removed as well.

At any rate, bad hide and no one should be the recipient of what you were on this site. Even by one-day trolls.

[DeadLetterOffice]

89. I have long believed that hide votes...

... should REQUIRE an explanation, exactly so that we can see when misunderstandings (like juror #6) occur, and possibly to reduce the "I vote to hide everything by poster x" phenomenon.

This decision was ridiculous.

[skepticscott]

112. Agreed

And people who would vote for a bogus hide out of simple prejudice against the poster might at least be shamed into excusing themselves from the jury if they had to actually write a justification.

[davidpdx]

222. I agree and will go one further

by saying that if you are going to serve on a jury, no matter how you vote you should be required to state the reason you are voting to hide or keep the post. That just seems logical, but maybe it's not practical.

[DhhD]

289. It is very very practical. If you cannot write a reason, then click on the button that reads,

I can't serve right now, when you are ask to serve on a jury by DU Administration at the top of the page.

[davidpdx]

402. I agree

But I meant they would have to change the program to make it mandatory. I lean toward making it mandatory, especially since the complaints about "bad hides" it certainly would provide more information whether that was actually true or not. It would also help if someone wanted to appeal a hide.

[noiretextatique]

368. And...how would not hiding the post change what happened?

Really? How does repeating the rantings of a racist loon change...anything? The poster could have started a thread about the incident, one that probably have not been banned.

[awoke_in_2003]

72. Holy hell. nt

[GeoWilliam750]

95. Entirely unacceptable

Your post should never have been hidden, and I agree in your keeping a copy for the record.

Alert stalking is wrong, and the alert stalking of Bravenak has been particularly disgusting.

Stay loud 1StrongBlackMan. We need to hear what you have to say.

[one_voice]

122. Am I reading correctly..

Juror #6, suggesting you be PPR'd? For re-posting a troll's comment?

edited...don't want to judge without all the facts...

[1StrongBlackMan]

164. I think Juror Number 6 mis-read the post ... at least, I hope so. eom

[Number23]

129. And only one of these fine, upstanding individuals had the courage to even post an explaination

I hope that every single person here sees this and remembers this the next time you and especially bravenak have posts hidden. This shit is clearly BEYOND personal and has nothing to do with politics.

The only minority voices wanted here are the ones that support a particular candidate and if that means that's only 5 black voices on DU, it is obvious that a large number of people here would be perfectly thrilled with that.

[thesquanderer]

146. leaving an explanation is not a matter of courage... it's anonymous, after all, no courage required

Some people like to explain themselves, others not so much. Also, sometimes they may feel it's obvious. If I saw a vitriolic post with the N word, I might just hit Hide without explanation, thinking the explanation was self-evident. People don't necessarily always take the time to examine context... and in this case, I'm with those who say the context was not even immediately apparent.

[Number23]

258. Yeah, I can understand the confusion. The fact that 1SBM's post title was "keeping for POSTERITY"

and he used the block quote/excerpt feature that is clearly designed to show that something is being quoted. Yeah, I can really understand why so many were so confused that he was quoting another poster!

And thanks for chiming in with your absolutely 100% needless explanation of courage. That took... courage, I guess.

[thesquanderer]

304. the subject line, etc.

"keeping for posterity" is not a complete indication of the context, if you don't already know the context.

Quoting something vile doesn't necessarily make it less vile.

Imagine this: Someone says something horrendous, and is banned. You *agree* with the terrible post, so you decide to repost it, essentially on the banned person's behalf, as a kind of tribute to him. Just how different would that look, from what actually was presented in 1SBM's post? How deep do you expect a jurist to dig to determine intent?

Here's the point: Jurists may make their decisions in a matter of seconds. Don't you think it's possible that a jurist could simply see the post, see it as instantly offensive even while not giving full consideration to the possible implications of the subject line, and just hit "Hide it"? We kind of already know that jurist 6 reacted that way. We've had people in this very thread (post #21 and reply post #76) who looked at it and thought they were agreeing with the OP when they, too, said they would have banned it! So clearly, it is very possible. So I think it's only speculation that any or all of the other jurists voted out of racism rather than out of anti-racism.

As for the explanation of courage, it was your subject line that accused the jurists of not having the courage to explain themselves. If you think it was so ridiculous to imply that such a thing actually would have taken courage that an explanation to the contrary was 100% needless, then why you would have said it? Though in hindsight, I guess I can see it could have just been blowing off steam and not meant as a true comment per se. In a way this gets back to the main point... separating the content of posts from their intent. It's not foolproof.

[Number23]

384. Are you about done yet?

[1StrongBlackMan]

166. LOL ...

The only minority voices wanted here are the ones that support a particular candidate and if that means that's only 5 black voices on DU, it is obvious that a large number of people here would be perfectly thrilled with that.

Well ... Then, there can correctly (though dishonestly) make the claim that Black voices feeling the bern are no longer outlier voices (on DU).

And only one of these fine, upstanding individuals had the courage to even post an explaination

Well ... is that typical? But what gets me is, as much traffic as this has gotten, one won't think at least 1 of the 5 (particularly, Jurir #6) would post a "Oops, I screwed up there."

But, I guess they are comfort with others thinking they affirm the sentiment of the initial post.

[JustAnotherGen]

411. The most in the wrong

Was the alerter. I alerted on someone yesterday and they received a hide. It takes a blatant tos break to get me to do that.

The alerter in your case - seemed angry that the other post was hidden so was trying to stick it to you.

Good, bad indifferent - they were familiar with the post you quoted and seemed angry so they were going to put you in your place.

The alert comes across like that to me. Just my opinion about their thought process in no way, shape, or form an I attacking them as a person. I'm attacking their wrong headed belief system.

[1StrongBlackMan]

416. It no longer matters. Skinner has spoken and affirmed the hide ...

his site, his rules.

Onward; but, I can't say UPWARD!

[SusanaMontana41]

92. Oh my f*****g god.

Repugnant. That language has no place anywhere, much less DU.

[Gman]

96. It's hard to imagine

And I hear ya, but think some of these people that sit on juries these days pretty regularly know who the Hillary supporters are and who has made the Sanders people deal with things they still don't want to deal with on their own terms and with their own definitions like race. Sadly I think it's very likely that either they saw it was you and a post with the N word and thought no further or they just didn't do their due diligence which involves just a couple more clicks. I'm afraid it was some very lazy juroring. The only reason I say this is in 15 years here on DU, I've never seen anything like the racism this appears to be.

These people are also playing a game to stick people with enough hides that they can't post. And that's another thing they may be doing with you. I got a hide a couple of weeks ago for replying to one of the most vocal of them. My response enraged her even more. She alerted and because she did the alerting and I was replying to her, my post was his. I should have alerted on her post, but why waste the time and effort. In another time, her post would have been hidden.

Not that there's not been racism here. And I've never seen racism here like I have in this Hillary-Sanders thing. Its been everything including telling Blacks how and why to think something because they know better than anyone else or insinuating that Blacks here just aren't as smart as they are, and more.

But I think laziness and vengeful partisanship are at the core of the problem with the jury system.

I just hope I'm right and it's not the worst and you are right. If it is and it's allowed, I'm outa here for good.

[AwakeAtLast]

157. You explained it clearly

That is what "captured" means.

Was the poster TS'd, or did they delete before that could happen.

I've been on DU a long time, still can't believe we still see this shit.

I have no words, just

[wryter2000]

179. That's beyond disgusting

I'm sorry you had to read that, but I'm glad you posted it. I'm glad you still have it so we can see it.

The management has a lot of work to do. Please, don't get so disgusted you stop posting here. You're one of the few people whose posts I always open and read.

[redstatebluegirl]

31. I have sat on a number of juries lately.

In most cases I have been the odd man out, either not voting to hide or being the only one voting to hide a post. It has never been like that before the Bernie Hillary feud on DU.

What happened here should have been removed immediately, and the person using the N word should have been suspended. We can't allow that kind of junk here. I renewed my membership and sent some money but not as much as in the past. I actually thought for a time about not renewing.

The political discourse in the country as a whole has become uncivil, here it has become worse than that.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. This is utterly unaceptable.

Was this sent to 1SBM by email or posted somewhere?

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. It was posted to a thread. eom

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Was the thread removed?

If not I would love to know why not.

You and I have disagreed on occasion, but I want to make clear that this type of behaviour must NOT be tolerated and the person who posted that remark should be banned from this board. I understand your reason for posting it and your posting should NOT have been hidden.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Yes, MIRT handled it's business with the quickness ...

But I am far more troubled (?) by the 5 jurors that voted to hide my post ... for the reasons I've stated.

[virtualobserver]

97. Unless you think that you are on a KKK site, you have to realize that #6 clearly misunderstood

and the others who voted to hide without comment were probably even less attentive.

Unless of course, you believe that 5 out of 7 DU'ers are members of the Aryan Brotherhood

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. I think it is what it is ...

Apologia, aside.

[noiretextatique]

334. Your post was inappropriate

You cannot repost the rantings of racist idiots. Posts like that are alerted on and deleted. There really is no big mystery or conspiracy. It has happened to others who've done the same thing. Maybe that needs to change. That jury did what is supposed to do...eliminate mention of banned assholes and their insanity. I am curious as to why your post should have stayed, when others like are routinely deleted.

[1StrongBlackMan]

362. No! It's my post is NOT inappropriate ...

You cannot repost the rantings of racist idiots. Posts like that are alerted on and deleted.

Yes. I can, and will, capture the ranting of racist idiots. Yes. They are alerted on and deleted by MIRT ... but only the most extreme case, is this instance, clearly, was.

I am curious as to why your post should have stayed, when others like are routinely deleted.

If you can't figure that out, given the back and forth on this issue; then, I can't help you.

[noiretextatique]

366. And you will have more hides

Because of your choices. If the OP is racist, what changes it by reposting it? You got it hidden. And surely you can start a thread to discuss this incident without the OP. And what exactly do you hope to accomplish by posting the rantings of racist trolls, already banned by this community? Do you think people are unaware that racist trolls come here to spew idiotic bullshit? Sorry...I am not hosting this party. The hide was appropriate. And this OP is nonsense.

[1StrongBlackMan]

373. Perhaps ... And I will have more protestations ...

I WILL screen shot, each and every, racist rant I see on DU, without regard to whether it is a first time poster, or a long-term DUer, AND without consideration to how uncomfortable it makes DUers, who would rather not see it.

If the OP is racist, what changes it by reposting it?

It is exposed to the wider DU audience that "knows that racism exists" but can't seem to find it on DU. I'll say, again, I have been through the "Who", "What", "Post a Link" of any attempt of a Black person to expose racist language. And it is done by
wide-eyed DUers, whose "I have not seen it" turn into the oft repeated, "Wow, I didn't know."

[noiretextatique]

378. racism is exposed here on a daily basis

do you really need to copy their posts? the troll was banned and the posts were deleted...that is what's supposed to happen. but you decided to repost...for exposure. i know y'all have convinced others you are being targeted by juries, but i am still not convinced. i think it should have been hid, and forgotten. another racist troll will show up and say something vile...will that require another plea to Skinner about being a target of rigged juries? c'mon...this is not about exposing racism.

[Hekate]

55. Kelvin -- click the link in the OP

[Kelvin Mace]

103. I did and saw where 1SBM had his removed

and I read the context of his remarks. I was look for where the original had been taken down.

I disagree with removing 1SBM's post.

[Skittles]

269. was it self-deleted?

not seeing it

recommending this thread; something is very wrong here

[uponit7771]

33. Skinner... this post at least deserves an address no? What happened was wrong.... tia

[TexasProgresive]

36. K&Rfor whatever good it will do.

I posted about the absurdity of the jury system and arbitrary alerts Dec 9,2015 to no avail.

TexasProgresive (7,749 posts)
The reason for alerts on nearly every jury I have been on have been puzzling.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599144
JustAnotherGen suggested I repost this here. I don't have much hope that anything will be done to improve the jury system, but some of us who serve on juries are aware of the arbitrary and sometimes mean spirit intent of alerters. There should be some accountability.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=34191
If the alerter is not being vindictive the only reason I can see for the alert is a misunderstanding. I confess that I alerted on a post and that was the case. I realized it as soon as I submitted and wished I could take it back. Fortunately the jury was intelligent in their deliberations and did not vote to hide. If I was on a jury to keep or lose the jury system I would vote to vote to lose it. The problem is what would replace it.

Suggestions I think would improve the system:
1. When a post is alerted the poster is sent a message which allows them to edit or self delete the post.
2. A reasonable time limit on alerting a post, say 2 hours max, after that the alert is null.
3. A verdict to hide can be appealed.
4. Member's profiles should show an alert history for all to see.
5. Alerts should not be anonymous.
6. A daily, weekly and monthly limit on alerts. Say, once per day, two per week and 3 per month.

The reply:

Star Member Skinner (61,247 posts)
1. I think the focus on alerts is missing the point.

We have juries who are perfectly capable of evaluating whether alerts have merit. If any DU member doesn't want to get their posts hidden then they need to make an effort to be civil. Anything less and you take your chances.

[NurseJackie]

47. Sadly, even "civil" things are regularly hidden ...

... if they're critical of Bernie or his fans, and the most outrageous posts against Hillary or her supporters are allowed to stand. Nobody is imagining this or exaggerating this.

[Human101948]

51. Or something innocuous posted in the Hillary group...

and perceived as an attack by the hypersensitive denizens thereof.

[BlueMTexpat]

54. +1! eom

[arikara]

160. I've seen that work both ways in equal numbers

It all depends on who gets on the jury.

I never vote to hide BS alerts either way but I'm often outvoted.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

231. I'm asking everyone to write an email to Skinner sometime this week.

[steve2470]

278. I wrote to him in ATA

I asked him to reverse the hide on 1SBM and bring back moderators ASAP.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

286. What happened?

[steve2470]

323. no reaction so far nt

[steve2470]

400. here's the verdict from Skinner

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599607

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

405. O.K., that really sucks. We have no one on our side. No one.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

38. Words of Wisdom

The problem with democracy is that minorities can get crushed.

It is a remarkable thing that there are enough American people to fight against this basic problem of democracy.

[Omaha Steve]

39. 1SBM and I got into it just once over a year ago

I remember the time because it was during the annual holiday basketball tournament. More of a misunderstanding. We straightened it out. It was over steel workers I think. I have the highest RESPECT for him!

I'm only guessing the jury misunderstood it was a quote. I sure would not have voted to hide it.


Bravenank seems to post a lot of "push your button" stuff that wastes time or is inflammatory in GD-P. It has nothing to do with race. I wouldn't use that word for ANY DUer.

Juries can be funny. I simply posted in December that a grave dancer was on time out. It wan't for the grave post. None of the dancing stuff and got a hide: http://www.democraticunderground.com/128086983

So it isn't 85% at any given time.

Any potential jury note this is opinion, and not meant to be inflammatory or rude. Just a simple observation.

OS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7460023

[LiberalArkie]

121. Results

On Tue Feb 16, 2016, 01:51 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

1SBM and I got into it just once over a year ago
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=40546

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is calling out another DUer directly by name. This is a direct violation of TOS.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 16, 2016, 02:01 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough of the meta drama.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a nonsense alert. What is wrong with people that they are so uptight?
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh for pete's sake. This is neither rude, insulting, over-the-top, nor inappropriate. The whole thread is about other DUers.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[uppityperson]

333. Alerter,-you are wrong, there is nothing in TOS about calling out a duer by name. And to the OP...

I've seen this particular argument before and no, there isn't. There a link to TOS at the bottom on every DU page, please reread it.

For the OP of this thread, juries do not always rule properly. A post can easily be misunderstood, or misread. I have clicked the wrong but before also. Mistakes happen, juries happen. This seems more of a notice towards jurors than Skinner.

[Quayblue]

42. K&R

[blackspade]

43. Totally uncalled for hide.

As a member of the "85%", as you call it, I can only wish I had been on that jury.
It is a ridiculous hide and whoever voted that way should be ashamed of themselves.

[Jack Rabbit]

44. K/R

[TexasProgresive]

45. When I was looking for my post in ATA I noticed a lot of unanswered posts, why, Skinner?

Just to kick again.

[SunSeeker]

46. K & R

[morningfog]

48. That hide should be reversed. Does anyone have the results?

It was either vindictive and the jurors hiding it should be reprimanded or the jurors did not understand the post was a quote in response.

Either way that was very bad.

[blue neen]

50. It's time to do something.

DU has now become a place where racist and sexist comments are the norm, rather than the anomaly.

Skinner, you are allowing certain people to undo the credibility that DU has had all of these years.

The jury system is not working. It has been gamed.

[MissDeeds]

149. I've been on DU for eight years

and have had only two hides. The first one was for using the "b" word in a post. Interestingly, a week or so ago there were all manner of vulgar, crude, and sexist words on the front page of DU. I know it was to make a point, but if it's wrong for one poster, it should be wrong for all posters and in all circumstances.

The rules are too haphazardly applied, and the jury system is far from "fair and balanced".

[Hekate]

52. That is breathtaking. I am so sorry, my friends.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Hey that's happened to me in the past, quoting horrible crap back to some later PPR'd bigot

in order to red flag the bigotry for the community and me getting a hide for it. It made me furious and so I relate to 1SBM on that one. Such a hide is a badge of honor as soon as the bigot is shown the door.

I've expressed concerns about unfair jury results for minority groups on DU from the first day we heard about the jury system. It's not rocket science, having see the actual US jury system at work, to see that such imbalances and injustices are rife even with a room full of lawyers, a judge and a full jury.

[Beowulf]

56. I stand with DSB

Bernie supporter here and I'm appalled at the abuse some posters are receiving here. This thuggery needs to be called out, thanks 1SBM and Bravenank. Hiding the call-out's makes no sense to me.

[irisblue]

60. This is so wrong. 1SBM hide should be overturned.

[HassleCat]

62. I can see it

There are many people who believe that word should not be repeated anywhere, even if it's to point out that someone else was wrong to use the word. I can see the point. I understand the MIRT did its job and the offender is gone.

[heaven05]

63. won't do any good

The arbitrary and selective nature of. Who gets hidden the most has been known for quite a while now on this site. And the hides are usually for one reason only, to hide the true nature of Who has always been the entitled, coddled group in this American culture. I laugh out loud now at the ubertransparency.......of American race relations as exhibited on this site........

[Gothmog]

64. K&R

[SheenaR]

65. K & R

No room for that type of speech here, regardless of candidate or position loyalties.

Great work DSB

[liberal N proud]

66. KICK - KICK - KICK & RECOMMEND

Nicely done Democrat Since Birth.

Nicely Done!

[Empowerer]

67. I sign on to this letter ...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

68. 1SBM's hide was NOT correct.

Calling out racist insults made publicly or privately, even if that call out includes the word "nigger" should not be hidden. Ever. The only one who should be rebuked is the originator of the racist comments. Jury got this one WAY wrong.

[PaulaFarrell]

69. maybe I'm wrong

But if the original is hidden because it's offensive then surely the copy of it is just as offensive? I don't want to read that shit on this board and even though I understand that the poster just wanted to provide evidence of racist abuse, it shouls not be here. If the complaint is that he was penalised for it,maybe that's a different issue, but I do think both original and copy should have been hidden.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. The poster shined a light on racism./nt

[Chemisse]

83. Unless I am mistaken, the original post was a one-hit wonder.

Who was swiftly booted from DU.

I don't see why we should shine a spotlight on the hateful rhetoric of a troll.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

110. Because many white DUers continue to deny that racism here exists. 1SBM was posting as an example.

It should not have gotten a HIDE. Period.

[Bobbie Jo]

124. That person was very familiar with

these DU'ers, and called them out by name. It was either a sock or a banned DU'er who can't let go.

This person knew what he was doing.

[JustAnotherGen]

412. Tyvale was the pprd individual

At ten posts and being a member for less than an hour - he/she SOP Alerted the Group Hosts of this Group (I'm one) on an OP by digital puppy.

New rule - you must be a member for 90 days and have 250 posts before you "alert" button appears.

That should be easy to code.

[noiretextatique]

352. No...the troll did that just fine.

And he got a ban a hide for it. If you think the jury was racist too, I am not sure that can be proven.

[wildeyed]

88. I disagree.

It is not offensive when it is posted by the person it was written about. Honest discussions about racism are often uncomfortable. Oh well, there it is. Anyone who does not like a particular discussion is free to use the hide thread or hide poster buttons that have so generously been provided by the admins.

It is also unfair to the rest of us, who wish to have these difficult discussions, to have the posts of respected, longterm black board members arbitrarily hidden because the factual content made a majority white jury uncomfortable.

But you are correct about the second thing. It was posted as a reply BEFORE the other post was deleted, so should not count as a hide on 1Strong either.

[mcar]

148. Well said!

[noiretextatique]

328. BINGO...we have a winner!

That is why posts quoting banned posters are usually deleted.

[betsuni]

350. Then why does the Bernie Sanders group have two pinned posts by a banned member?

[noiretextatique]

354. Why the fuck are you asking me?

Alert, if you think it is inappropriate, or make a case to Skinner.

[betsuni]

356. Because you said "That is why posts quoting banned posters are usually deleted"

That poster was banned and his posts are pinned in the Bernie Sanders group, not deleted. Why must we fight? You know I love you.

[noiretextatique]

359. I don't buy into bullshit

So, whatever your problem is with whatever groups or poster, I suggest you take it up with them. Or start a thread to Skinner about it. I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I care. I don't know what is in that group. My comments are about this ridiculous attempt to claim a TOS violation should not have been alerted on and deleted. Racist language is not permitted, even if you are coping someone else. that is why the post was deleted.

[betsuni]

364. You have three Bernie avatar things. Forgive me, I thought you might have gone and

looked at the Bernie group sometime and seen what is there. It's not you, it's me! Can't we work it out? We can see a therapist. I am not coping someone else, I swear! I won't delete you from my heart, nor take it up with other groups or posters, or start a thread without you. Just because it is true that the Bernie group has pinned posts from a banned member when you said this is not possible ... well, never mind if you say so! My two loves, DU and noiretextatique.

[noiretextatique]

367. See a therapist. Truly eom

[betsuni]

370. ...

February moon
Night, I wait for your reply
noiretextatique!

[pinebox]

73. K&R

This shouldn't be happening and is disgusting.

[Blue_Tires]

74. Jury system has been broken for ages...

Even before the primaries, most hide/leave decisions hinge on whether or not the juror likes/hates the offender or likes/hates the DUer the offending post is directed to...

I've brought it up with Skinner, but the bottom line is this is the system we have and we've got to live with it.

[sheshe2]

233. Agreed, Blue.

That hide was based on name recognition alone. Both Bravenak and 1SBM are being stalked here.

[awoke_in_2003]

75. K&R for visibility

I stand with you all.

[Lancero]

77. Revealing the alerters would help a LOT in these cases...

But nope, that'd (GASP) make the system a bit more transparent and accountable and a lot of other bad things.

[LuvLoogie]

79. K&R

[lunamagica]

80. K&R. Please, fix this mess.

[lunamagica]

143. Another kick

[ejbr]

82. As an AA Sanders supporter,

I am sickened and embarrassed by what was said to 1SBM. It was obviously said by someone who not only has a weak mind, but also was losing the debate on whatever topic that was being discussed. To think that this type of language can so easily be placed on a progressive forum just boggles my mind.

It is not for me to apologize or seek forgiveness, but I must acknowledge that my side of the aisle may not be as clean as I once thought. Yes, emotions are high for us political junkies, but there must be some bounds of reason.

Hence, the jury system. Even if 1SBM had more clearly identified that he is AA and was reposting to ensure visibility (thanks for that 1SBM, by the way), I can see how well-meaning DUers would vote to hide. That ugly word makes most compassionate people cringe and they figured it should be hidden. Maybe someone was being vindictive and hid it, which would break my heart also.

That being said, it is still there to be read for posterity, 1SBM if one chooses to "show" the reprehensible language leveled at you. Maybe this will give us all a second look at how we speak to each other during these emotional times. I hope we do as I can be guilty of the occasional condescension myself. As for jury duty, well I can understand how the minority (on this site, anyway) may have legitimate concerns.

[Flying Squirrel]

192. I believe there's a tiny clue in his username

As to his ethnicity.

[ejbr]

196. Tiny

South Bay Merchant

South Boston Musician

Striking Blue Moon

Even still, the word causes visceral reactions that make the status of the person posting somewhat of a blur. Nevertheless, I appreciate that he did allow others to see what is going on.

[Flying Squirrel]

200. His username is 1StrongBlackMan.

The fact that many abbreviate it "1SBM" does not change the fact that the full name is displayed above his posts.

[ejbr]

201. Oh

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosannadanna

[noiretextatique]

331. One tiny problem: You cannot do that

And if you do, your post will most likely be deleted. If people want to change the rules...fine. But those are the current rules. And morphing the rantings of a racist troll into some indictment of 85% of DU is hyperbole at its finest.

[demosocialist]

84. K&R

Why is the alerter not getting in trouble?

[Lucky Luciano]

85. Yeah - that's crap. Major jury issues. nt

[Chemisse]

86. I would think that undeclared members would be ideal for juries.

When we commit to a candidate, our perspective shifts and it's harder to be objective.

[Android3.14]

87. It comes down to a simple question

Is it okay to use the N-word as long as you are quoting someone else?

[1StrongBlackMan]

99. Why ask the question? ...

Are you looking for a slick way to use the word, lest you somehow feel cheated?

[Android3.14]

101. Curious response. That would be a question you should ask yourself

I don't use racial epithets. Ever. This is especially true on the internet where a person can claim to be any race, gender, sexual identity, religion, party, or shoe size.

So the basic question is still, "Is it acceptable to use the N-word when quoting someone else?"

I would hazard the guess that most people would say it is unacceptable, and I would further bet that is the actual majority reason for the hide.

[LanternWaste]

116. Let's try, shall we?

"So the basic question is still, "Is it acceptable to use the N-word when quoting someone else?"

Let's try, shall we?

"The "damned naygurs"--this is another descriptive title which has been conferred upon them by a class of our fellow-citizens who persist, in the most short-sighted manner, in being on bad terms with them in the face of the fact that they have got to sing with them in heaven or scorch with them in hell some day in the most familiar and sociable way, and on a footing of most perfect equality."

- "Mark Twain on the Colored Man," Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, July 1865




I would hazard the guess that most people would say it is unacceptable, and I would further bet that is the actual majority reason for the hide...."
Since we're simply guessing, mine is that far too many people are ignorant of context, and "I would further bet that is the actual majority reason for the hide..."

[Android3.14]

126. You are right, context is important

Unfortunately the contextual rules for acceptable quoting of racial epithets is subjective, over complicated and it's probably just easier to have a general restriction.

[LanternWaste]

284. Context is not complicated... in fact, it's merely common sense

Context is not complicated... in fact, it's merely common sense.

I doubt lowering the bar of discourse simply for the benefit of the lowest common denominators and assorted half-wits would solve any problems.

[Android3.14]

287. If only that were so

It's a nice sentiment, but it rarely plays out that way. This situation being a case in point. Thoughtful people on both sides of this discussion see 1SBM's action in different ways, based on how they infer the context.

[noiretextatique]

347. Probably why the post was removed eom

[Quayblue]

100. No it doesnt come down to a "simple question"

[Android3.14]

105. Sure it does.

the questions is simple in phrasing and the answer is one of three choices. The answer is either yes, no or sometimes.

The reasons for the answer might be complicated for some, but I think we both know "complicated" reasons are for people who just want to use the N-word.

[Quayblue]

108. yeah okay. I'm certain you truly care eom

[Android3.14]

109. Care about what?

I recognize you were being sarcastic, but I don't understand why it was sarcastic.

[Quayblue]

113. Have a good rest of the day eom

[LanternWaste]

285. Possibly because many people measure your sincerity...

"I don't understand why it was sarcastic."

Possibly because many people measure your sincerity against what you write and find it wanting. Certainly so in my case.

[Android3.14]

290. You have errors in your assumptions

You lack knowledge on my motivations and character, and are mainly unhappy that I am not falling all over myself defending another poster's error.

Based on your post and the topic of this subthread, are you saying it is okay to quote racists epithets, or only saying it is okay sometimes. If so, then what are the rules (to which all thoughtful people will agree) to determine when it is okay?

My observation is that there are no "rules" for that sort of thing. Consequently, people use racial epithets at their own risk.

I distrust anyone of any race who passes judgements on other people based on the color of their own skin or the perceived color of the skin of the person they are judging.

[wildeyed]

153. My rule of thumb.

It is never ok for whites. None of my business when blacks use it. YMMV, but that system has always worked for me.

The one exceptions was years ago in a discussion here that went on here for days about about the actual word. The majority of black posters in that thread seemed to prefer if everyone, white and black, just used the word for the purpose of that conversation.

That is also a conversation that we could not have under the moderation rules on the current site because there was a bunch of butthurt in that thread for sure. It would be too challenging and 'offensive' for the majority these days.

[Android3.14]

169. What color am I, are you, is anyone on the internet

I tend to agree with your rule of thumb, but for online forums, we have sockpuppets galore, with a great many being people pretending to be non-white, trans, member of different religions, disabled, etc. Is it okay for a white person pretending to be black to use the N-word?

And it still side-slips the question of whether it is okay to quote the use of the N-word. As a poster upthread showed, the context is important, but I also noted that appropriate context is a subjective judgment call.

Personally, I am a near-absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech. I think a person has the right to pretty much say whatever they want, offensive or otherwise, and the responsibility to face the consequences of saying it, except for going to jail. I choose not to use the N-word in order to be polite, avoid appearance as a racist and continue engaging in discussion.

It's kind of like refraining to defecate in the subway.

let's take the subway analogy even further, 1SBM's mistake was discovering someone had defecated in his subway car and then tossing the excrement in the next car and saying, "It is just awful that someone left their crap in my subway." Then he became upset when people in that second car said, "Get that poop out of here."

Now we are all in a third subway car dealing with the same stupid shit.

[wildeyed]

204. I disagree.

There are socks galore who are making false claims, but no one doubts that 1SBM or bravenak are who they claim. Their posts are too prolific and consistent. And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It is a community standards issue.

I avoid using that word because I hate it and all it stands for from the mouth of a white person.

When a white person could own the body of a black person. When a black boy could be hung publicly by a mob because someone claimed he was uppity or look wrong at a white woman. I hate the injustice that word symbolizes, the terror, the theft of labor and lives, the pure, unadulterated greed and ignorance. That word, from the mouth of a white person, symbolizes the very worst our country has to offer.

It takes on a different meaning in the mouths of black people who chose to say it about other black people. Black people can use the word because now they own that word and decide for themselves how they want to use it. Or not. Language is powerful.

And a black person can sure as shit use the word if they are simply pointing out a hateful post that was directed at them. That is not "tossing excrement". That is simply pointing at the pile someone else left and saying Hey, we need to CLEAN THIS SHIT UP! Or you think the victim should be responsible for cleaning up the pile of shit by themselves? Or should just step over it, pretend it didn't happen because the existence of said pile makes some uneasy?

None of this seems particularly subjective

Don't use that word if you are white. Mind your own beeswax if you are white and a black person chooses to use the word. And call that shit OUT if a white person levels it against a black person.

[Android3.14]

219. You make good points

I'll give it some thought.

[Android3.14]

390. I've given it some thought

First off, I want you to know that I gave this careful thought, weighing your points against what happened, the strength and weakness of text communication, freedom of speech, community standards and the nature of online forums.

I lack the regard you have for some on this board. I distrust anyone who will make judgements on others based on skin color (whether it is their own skin color or that of the person they are judging), especially with a text-based communication. In the faux anonymity of the digital world, a person should have a healthy suspicion of anyone claiming a privilege based on an unverified characteristic. Not everyone sees consistency where you see consistency, nor does a huge number of posts make someone trustworthy. But in the end, even if "no one doubts", using the N-word is offensive to many people on a text-based forum.

Second, you are right about this having nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nor does it, however, have anything to do with community standards in the way you have framed it. It has everything to do with some members of the DU community trying to be "more equal" than others.

I understand and appreciate the hate you feel for the word, and I agree that almost every time it comes from the mouth of a white person it has a level of offense that is worthy of that hate. While I appreciate your sentiment, i do not share it. I do not hate words. I hate how some people use words.

As far as a black person "...can sure as shit use the word if they are simply pointing out a hateful post that was directed at them," I disagree. It is reminiscent of a scene from a popular cartoon in which Bart Simpson repeats the word "hell" over and over because Homer said it. That is no excuse to be offensive. 1SBM could just as easily have used the euphemism "the N-word" as anyone else along with the link. In fact, that is what he should have done, because using the N-word is, to some people, like tossing excrement around.

Do you see how rules determining when it is okay to use a racial epithet are subjective?

1SBM's post was unnecessarily offensive. I agree with the jury's ruling. In a free society, we all accept the risk when we choose to use powerful language.

[noiretextatique]

336. No...it is not.

It will be considered and inappropriate post...period.

[asjr]

91. Thank you DSB. I now feel I can post again in Sandersland. It has been several

months since someone sitting in the jury chair banned me from ever posting in Sanders group. I had not said a bad word about Sen. Sanders but was tossed off my posting in that group. I am still blacked out! I have been here since 2002 and still have to be very conscious about what I write. DU should never make someone afraid to post. I used to love DU but mostly when I post someone will jump in and will say something rude. I realize there are those who think older people have no sense. I am an 83 year old woman who is still very much a liberal Democrat. I do not appreciate those who enjoy making fun of my posts. I hope Mr Skinner that you will read my message. Audrey Reynolds

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. Thank you for posting.

I will remember your post.

[Bobbie Jo]

161. Just because...

[Hekate]

186. It's been so bad for so long

I wish we could make it better, but I fear we cannot. It was a good run, though, wasn't it?

[ismnotwasm]

223. I hardly ever post

And I self censor a lot when I do anymore

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. I don't think it has anything to do with who 1StrongBlackMan supports....

I think it was because jurors read it and had a visceral reaction to it.

Personally, I applaud 1StrongBlackMan for wanting to preserve that post because when someone gets booted all of their posts vanish. Frankly, I also find it gracious that 1StrongBlackMan kept the original poster's identity out of it.

[Loki]

94. Since being a member since early 2001

I thought I had been through the worst with the *selection of GWB, but never have I experienced the animosity toward
another Democratic candidate that I have experienced from the supporters of Bernie Sanders. They are childish, rude and frankly I don't consider them Democrats if they expect to stay home if their candidate isn't chosen as the nominee. The out of control "alerting" and banning has become evidence of something malignant and absolutist that doesn't represent who we are, it never has. I suggested in another post that the jury system be made open and public. If you want to participate, then we should be able to see who is commenting, who is alerting and make us all responsible for our comments. No more anonymous, it's not working.

[randys1]

98. The hide referenced in this thread is proof that the jury system absolutely must go, immediately

As to the behavior of supporters of one candidate or another, I find both candidates have supporters who can go off the deep end but I have to admit the way many of the Bernie supporters act would make me RUN from Bernie if I didnt know better as to who he was and what a man like him can mean to our country.

[noiretextatique]

342. Once again, the post was in appropriate

Using banned posters ingnorant rants to score points is generally frowned upon. A one-trick pony made a racist comment. His post was deleted and he was banned. In response to that, the poster chose to repost the already deleted post from someone who waa already banned. And the response: whine about the jury being packed with Sanders supporters. Bullshit.

[steve2470]

115. Some of the Senator Sanders supporters are, I'm convinced, stealth trolls....

I think the RNC wants to run against Senator Sanders because of SOCIALISM (which none of us here are scared of in the least), and so these trolls are trying to harass Secretary Clinton supporters. I can't prove this, but that's my gut feeling.

[Raster]

217. This post was alerted

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

From reading the threads on the banned troll who posted that disgusting post about Bravnak and 1SBK is a repeat offender who is banned on a regular basis, steve is aware of this .Attempting to tie this to Sanders supporters harassing Clinton supporters is a disgusting tactic.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:31 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I disagree with the sentiments of this alerted post and agree that what happened to Bravnak and 1SBM was due to a bad jury and maybe worse, this post in of itself, is not over the top and not hide worthy.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: These boards aren't a playground. There's actually supposed to be some decorum towards other posters, and factions. If we're going to let all standards go to the wayside, fine, but that should be announced by the management.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have been a lurker and a member of DU since 2002. I am appalled at the conduct of BOTH SANDERS AND CLINTON SUPPORTERS. The post originally in question using the "N" word to Bravnak and 1SBM was REPREHENSIBLE AND UNFORGIVABLE. I vote to let this stand, but implore supporters of both Democratic candidates to abandon the tasteless rhetoric and return to well-thought reason. A house divided cannot stand.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything disruptive about this post. You can agree or disagree, but this is an opinion and does not insult anyone particular. Am quite surprised by the alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This whole thread is a mess of accusations, counter-accusations, and just plain whining about DU. In this context, this fits right in. In any event, it doesn't violate any specific

[steve2470]

275. Thanks, I'm not surprised

For the record, dear alerter and jurors, I am a Senator Sanders supporters and you can search the archives to verify this. If I say anything more, I'm sure I'll be alerted again.

[NeoGreen]

292. Can you (or anyone else) provide a critical review of your post's jury comments...

...so that future jurors may learn how to improve their service.

Up thread there have been posts indicating that one of the problems with jury service is that many DU'ers don't provide comments as to why they voted for their hide/no-hide.

I have been making an attempt to add reasoning and/or comments to all my jury service votes and would like to know what you think of the comments above.

I must be honest and say that if I had been on the jury of 1SBM's post, I might have voted to hide just due to the inclusion of the offensive word. However, I would hope that after reading the subsequent response and comments to the jury result, I would have also reached out to 1SBM, by PM at a minimum, and apologized for my jury error.

For the record, I do not think the Jury system is fundamentally flawed, but I do agree that it is being successfully gamed and could use some "tweaks" to allow for review/correction of bad jury results.

Just my 2 cents,
NG

[steve2470]

329. sure, I'd be glad to

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I disagree with the sentiments of this alerted post and agree that what happened to Bravnak and 1SBM was due to a bad jury and maybe worse, this post in of itself, is not over the top and not hide worthy.

This juror and I disagree about my post, but I agree with him/her that my post was not hide-worthy. I also agree that the jury on 1SBM was a bad one.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: These boards aren't a playground. There's actually supposed to be some decorum towards other posters, and factions. If we're going to let all standards go to the wayside, fine, but that should be announced by the management.

Of course the boards aren't supposed to be a playground, and I try to type my posts in a fair and reasonable way. I am a Sanders supporter, so of course I'm not going to malign my "faction". However, I stand by my opinion that a MINORITY of my "faction" are trolls.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

I don't agree with a hide. This poster was a) in too big of a hurry; b) felt that commenting was a waste of time; c) had poor motives; OR d) didn't understand my post or feels that ANY negative comment about Sanders supporters is hideable, which I vigorously disagree with.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have been a lurker and a member of DU since 2002. I am appalled at the conduct of BOTH SANDERS AND CLINTON SUPPORTERS. The post originally in question using the "N" word to Bravnak and 1SBM was REPREHENSIBLE AND UNFORGIVABLE. I vote to let this stand, but implore supporters of both Democratic candidates to abandon the tasteless rhetoric and return to well-thought reason. A house divided cannot stand.

Both Sanders and Clinton supporters have been guilty of poor behavior. That I agree with. I also agree that the original N-word post was reprehensible and deserved a PPR. Tasteless rhetoric ? I disagree. My "faction" is not perfect, and I reserve the right to comment upon it. I do NOT comment on any individual posters.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything disruptive about this post. You can agree or disagree, but this is an opinion and does not insult anyone particular. Am quite surprised by the alert.

This is an excellent juror in my opinion. They recognize that I stated an opinion about MY faction, whether one agrees or disagrees. Hiding an opinion about a FACTION is not acceptable to me. If you go over the line and state a nasty opinion about a particular poster, then yes, hide the post.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror should have stated his/her reasoning.

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This whole thread is a mess of accusations, counter-accusations, and just plain whining about DU. In this context, this fits right in. In any event, it doesn't violate any specific

My post was responding to another poster. I agree with the Leave verdict. The problem is, WHEN can you post an opinion about your own "faction" ? Never ? In an OP, which can be regarded as meta ? Only in an existing thread ? Only in a meta-type thread, which are currently allowed to stand routinely ? When meta comments are forbidden, then yes, I will not post any more meta-type comments.

NOTE TO THE JURY: Note that I have not spoken about ANY individual poster. I am not accusing any one particular person of anything. Look at context, read my entire post. Thank you kindly.

Hopefully my post is helpful to some.

[NeoGreen]

375. Thank you very much...

...I hope this exchange helps others, since it has helped me.

For the record, I was juror #1, and I now realize that I misread/misunderstood the gist of your post #115 (I read it as a Secretary-HRC supporter criticizing Senator-BS supporters) at the time I was evaluating it for jury duty.

Fortunately, as I always try to do, I focused on the content of the post.

I like the premise of DU jury duty process (i.e. general members of the DU community being vested in the practice of moderating site posts) but I think there may need to be some improvements in the mechanics of conducting jury duty so that a juror can more efficiently evaluate the thread in which the post was made, the history of the alerted-poster and history of the alertee.

I would like to see some method of allowing the alerted-poster to have an opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the alertee's comment. As it stands now the process seems too 1-sided against the alerted-poster. I could see where this rebuttal option has limits, i.e. only for those who have more than 100 posts, or some such criteria.

Plus, I would like to see a "Jury Primer" on DU that gives examples of good and bad hides and exactly what a "call-out" is (there are positive and negative call outs, and I've seen both used as reasons to vote for a hide) and what the DU definition of "meta" is, so we have a reference for our jury decisions.

And finally for the record, I am very happy that Senator Sanders is running for the nomination and I hope he does very well and ultimately succeeds, however, at the end of this process I will support the Democratic nominee, whomever that may be.

An R is an anathema to me.

Apologies if I rambled...
NG

[betsuni]

154. +1

[Blue_In_AK]

107. Your hide was definitely uncalled for,

but I can't help but think that the alerter and those who voted to hide were reflexively responding to the word and didn't really read the intent of your post.

Skinner should definitely override the hide on your record, and perhaps since the original offender was escorted out (if I'm understanding you correctly), the whole thread should be deleted.

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. This is just SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.

[MrScorpio]

117. Absolutely broken nt

[world wide wally]

120. DU is getting "dangerously" one sided

We are going to end up blowing the election with this kind of spoiled animosity.

[fbc]

123. I would have voted to hide it too.

How were the members of the jury supposed to know that this post was highlighting a racist post made by someone else? It is not clear at all.

If you quote a post that lacks any decency and is completely against the TOS, don't act like you are being picked on when it goes to jury and the jury votes against it.

Or is the theory here that people voted to hide the post because they agreed with the racist content of the post? The complete lack of logic in that line of thought is mind boggling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. The title heading "155. Captured for posterity. Bye Bye.", might have been a give away. ...

don't you think?

[fbc]

142. Might have been? maybe, but apparently not.

The post could have been much clearer about the poster's intention.

The idea that DU members voted to hide that post because they agreed with the original post and didn't believe it should be called out is ludicrous.

[1StrongBlackMan]

163. You have so much faith in segments of DU ...

a faith that other segments of DU have long been disabused of.

[mcar]

150. It was quite clear

Perhaps people should not join a jury if they are not going to take the time to read the post and possible the thread, for context.

[Kind of Blue]

212. Exactly! I've taken too long to read threads

for context on at least 2 occassions and told, we're done deciding, thanks anyway.

[awoke_in_2003]

208. "How were the members of the jury supposed to know"

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

having the reading comprehension of a 4th grader helps.

[fbc]

218. Is this post supposed to be ironic?

or maybe I should say ironical?

[awoke_in_2003]

220. Worse- autocorrect. nt

[rbrnmw]

349. It was block quoted for one thing

for another it is quite obvious that 1SBM is indeed a black man and posting vile racist shit slung at he and bravenak, not calling himself the N word.

[noiretextatique]

355. I would have too

Quoting banned trolls' deleted posts makes your post inappropriate. If all of you think this is soooo wrong and biased, by all means try it yourself.

[KauaiK]

125. Yeeeeessss - THANK YOU DemSinceBirth!!!

Finally someone's post remains up without being voted into oblivion. I have logged on just to post a big THANK YOU to DemocratSinceBirth before it gets hidden. I had what I thought to be a innocuous post for discussion voted off immediately. So have many many others.

I now spend the time I used to spend at DU at the Discussionist and JackPineRadical.

[still_one]

127. The idea of a "community standard", is a failure

[Bobbie Jo]

131. Abysmal. nt

[still_one]

133. a much better description

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

[steve2470]

279. There's too many trolls and people with poor motives that kill it

For the jury: I'm not aiming my comments at anyone in particular. Trolls are on both sides, and also people with poor motives are on both sides.

[Bobbie Jo]

128. Skinner, please fix this NOW

This is seriously wrong. As it stands, the jury system is broken and openly gamed.

At the very least reverse 1SBM's hide. These people are being targeted and the evidence is of the stalking behavior mounts by the day.

[kgnu_fan]

130. I do feel the same way. Thank you DemocratSinceBirth!

[Digital Puppy]

134. The response and reaction is very telling....

The sound of inaction...
The sound of neglect...
The sound of ambivalence...

Simple Definition of 'care':
: effort made to do something correctly, safely, or without causing damage
: things that are done to keep someone healthy, safe, etc.
: things that are done to keep something in good condition

[SwankyXomb]

135. Skinner gives zero f*cks

as long as the ad revenues keep rolling in.

[TBF]

136. As I've said many times -

we need the moderating system back (and I say this as someone who never served as a mod on this site).

[Amimnoch]

137. The Jury system has failed in its designed purpose: Making things more fair.

I believe it has made things more toxic, and I do believe it has done so for supporters of both candidates.

It is no longer about keeping Republican trolls out of our playground. It has become about using baiting posts to get someone to slip and get a hide on them. A hide, not for the content of their post; not for the purpose of hiding something insulting or obnoxious, but hiding for the sole purpose of silencing opposing views.

This has led to a very toxic culture of fear to express open and honest opinions either for or against Democratic Party candidates in a Democratic Primary. I do also feel that this toxic culture is going to do more to reduce overall support of whichever of our great candidates wins the Primary season from the supporters of the opposing candidate, resulting in damages to our Democratic Party candidate come the General election.

[DonCoquixote]

147. I hate to agree

but all you have to do is go to rival sites, like that one that rhymes with "disruptionist", and you will find people outright bragging about gaming the system, even directing it. Heaven knows the mods had the most thankless job,and I say this as one that used to help his Dad clean out sewage valves, the sort that often gave you a face full of you -know - what.

However, the jury is broken, was broken, and will be broken. Even if the tempo stepped up, and pizzas were given out twice as much, the fact that these other sites (one of which was your making, Skinner) are around means this site's enemies have place to hide, rest, patch up, and regroup. How many sock puppets have been caught?

[marble falls]

288. I am on jury almost every day. I take it very seriously, and I think it works the most of the time..

there are times when I see jurists make bad calls and I see juries where one of the jurists make a strong comment supporting a an alerted member with a vote against the alerted. I also see a lot of alerts that the jury obviously did not read the comment in context and hid a comment wrongly, I think that happened in part with the 1SBM hide. I think the juries are right at least 80% of the time and I don't know what can be done to effect removal of malicious posts and posters that also reflect the values of the DU community.

Is there gaming of the system? I believe there is. Its obvious that both 1SBM and bravenak have been target alerted even if I don't see how it works unless its just a matter of nonstop alerting at certain times of the day.

A few things might help improve the system: maybe a limit on alerts per person, a five minute lock on posting for jurors to give them the time to really look at an alert, maybe a time out from alerting if a member's alerts fail 0-7 or 1-6 so many times in a period.

It would be interesting to know how large any jury pool is. But I can see where that information could lead people to shop for times to alert abuse of other members.

Juries mostly work, maybe a SCODU (Surpreme Court of DU) to review verdicts like the one that 1SBM got stuck with? Made up of admin, Group Host, MIRT? Rating of jurists by % of verdicts in the majority?

If some the verdicts are toxic, imagine how toxic DU would be without juries and MIRT.

[noiretextatique]

345. Where is the proof of that?

Because it sure as hell is not in this thread. I am repeating myself ad nauseum, but when you chose to repost the ravings of a racist lunatic, after his post was deleted...and he was banned, I think it ridiculous to claim the jury was baised against you. Your post is now the inappropriate one. If people feel that is unfair, I can understand that. But to claim you did not get a fair shake because Sanders supporters alerted on you is nonsense.

[Amimnoch]

374. I offer you 351 posts in this thread - overwhelming majority in agreement.

Or do you not believe in Democracy? I can understand if you don't, the more this primary race goes, the more it's become a bully tactic to silence those with different views or opinions from your side. Reagan would have been impressed.

If your argument is so ad nauseum, maybe you should just stop?

Please do point out where I've chosen to repost the ravings of a racist lunatic.

[noiretextatique]

383. this is not "democracy"

you didn't repost...the apparent victim did. high-fiving a blatantly manipulative post is not democracy at all. it is politics, so is claiming the only possibility the post was hidden is because bernie bros are out to get you. sad.

[betsuni]

139. K&R

[LiberalLovinLug]

140. It seems like a simple case of misinterpretation

I think many on here that get a jury notice want to resolve it as soon as possible as to not be the juror that everyone is waiting for. Thus some do not go back and read the context and only react to the actual words they see first. And the N word, spelled out, is a big no no.

The fact that you blame Bernie supporters is telling. How do you know? It could be anyone who simply over-reacted to seeing THAT word. And/or disagreed with the need for it being repeated in the response. Why do you turn it into a Hillary/Bernie issue? You do know that Bernie also has many many AA supporters as well don't you?

I also find this whole...the other side must be being mean and vindictive just for the sake of being mean and vindictive, appallingly juvenile and distastefully defensive. The Hillary supporters have become increasingly the minority its true. Did you ever think it may be because the more people get to know Sanders, the more they see something they like? (including within the AA community) I recall those heady days when Hillary was cruising along as the heir apparent and the arrogance towards other candidates supporters was palatable. We, Bernie supporters braced ourselves and hung in there then. Do a few go over the line? Yes...on both sides. But to conflate a misunderstood hiding because of a racial slur on some conspiracy by Bernie supporters is paranoid lunacy.

[Digital Puppy]

141. Sure is a lot of that 'misinterpretation' going around then.....a whole lot... n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

172. You are reading a lot more into my post than what was there.

I also find this whole...the other side must be being mean and vindictive just for the sake of being mean and vindictive, appallingly juvenile and distastefully defensive.

I will just let your ad hominem attack stand. Such attacks are all too common and I am weary from fending them off.

[bravenak]

181. We know who has this attitude.

It's not a secret. And to come here and chastise us for 'paranoid lunacy' is very rude. This is the AA group, a protected from for AAs and our ALLIES to discuss issues. For people to come in and play the victim about an op that was in no way directed at them is abhorent.

[uponit7771]

184. nnnnnooooooooo, I disagree... there's no evidence of for your position here

[JustAnotherGen]

191. I'm not researching posts

Please back away from the thread. Five pms from four people since we made dinner, ate, and cleaned up - about this post.

Thanks

[noiretextatique]

240. as i mentioned, copied posts of banned trolls get deleted

i am not swayed by these emotinal arguments...this drama is tired and embarrassing. i have been on DU for a long time, and i have been called every name in the book. i have never posted thread after thread about how victimized i've been. nor i have i repeatedly alleged that the culprits hounding me (in a random selection system) are all supporters of one candidate. it has gotten more and more absurd.

[mcar]

144. I cannot rec this enough

That hide was about the worst of many unfair and unjust hides. It's a shame when it seems like sense has completely left the building.

[1StrongBlackMan]

167. And it was carried out door by DUers offering all sorts of apologia for the jury. eom

[mcar]

171. Indeed

I've been on this board since early 2002. It was a lifeline for me in my red county/purple state day to day.

It just makes me sad or angry being here now.

[JustAnotherGen]

152. To The Alerter - Nope

Dear Alerter:
Please note we allow Meta in this Group when it is on point. As you are a long time member of DU you are more than welcome to address your issues on the thread.


Automated Message
ALERT: Thread may violate Statement of Purpose for group: African American
Mail Message
You have received this Alert message because you are currently a Host of the group: African American.

ALERTED DISCUSSION THREAD

-- Author: DemocratSinceBirth
-- Title: An open letter to Skinner (POSTED IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN FORUM)
-- Location: African American
-- Posted: Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:22 AM
-- Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/118740490

ALERT INFORMATION

-- Sent by: REMOVED BY JAG
-- Reason: This discussion thread violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum.
-- Alerter's comments: Meta thread, should be in ATA

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: African American

Discuss topics and issues which affect the African-American community. DUers from all races are welcome to participate.

ABOUT THIS ALERT

As a forum Host it is your duty to ensure that threads meet the forum's Statement of Purpose. You are empowered to lock threads which you believe do not meet the Statement of Purpose.

You should only review the thread's originating post (otherwise known as the OP). You are not required to review the replies.

If you believe the OP is off-topic for the forum and/or does not meet the forum's Statement of Purpose, you should lock the thread by clicking the "Super powers" link at the bottom left corner of the OP and selecting the option "Lock thread (Reason: Violates this forum's Statement of Purpose)."

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. 1SBM recuses himself; but, is supportive of JAG's opinion.

[myrna minx]

159. I too think the hide was a bad hide. 1SBM was clearly

collecting proof of the horrible post - not propagating it - for he was clearly attacked in the offending post. The post in question was one of the worst things I've seen posted here. It's disturbing that someone felt safe to post that kind of trash here. 1SBM's intent to keep as proof was clear and it was a bad hide.

[1StrongBlackMan]

177. Clearly ...

1SBM's intent to keep as proof was clear

Yep ... It will be difficult for the "Who? What? Where? Post a link Crew" to do their routine ... even though they are trying their best with regard to the jurors.

But it is so much easier to offer apologia than acknowledgment.

[myrna minx]

190. There is no excuse for what happened to you. None. It's awful and I'm sick that

any of it happened. That's the ugliest thing I've read here and I can't imagine how it felt to have it directed to you personally. Also to have the further insult to have your post hidden. I'm sorry.

[bravenak]

162. Thank you Brother DSB!

[Lisa D]

170. Kick for visibility.

And no, the jurors didn't misunderstand 1SBM's post. And neither did the alerter.

[Moosepoop]

174. I stand with 1SBM and Bravenak

And all AA members and all others who are unfairly targeted.

This whole thing is wrong on multiple levels. I truly hope Skinner does rectify the situation.

K & R

[newthinking]

175. I don't understand the link to Sanders supporters

nor some of the other conclusions that are being jumped to about the jury members?

One possible improvement this outlines is that it may help to reveal the entire thread in the initial view of the comment that is being juried. I am not sure everyone opens a second page to view the subthread or spend the effort.

On Edit: I checked the original page and WOW, the "discussions" are definitely really getting heated - by both sides.

Maybe the primaries group needs moderation. Is it possible to find moderators that will truly apply neutral actions? Maybe restrict the moderating to behavior and restrict it from moving into positional arguments? Can that be done?

[1StrongBlackMan]

183. If people don't/won't read the first line of a post (for comprehension) ...

what makes you think they will read more.

[bettyellen]

178. Bullshit hide. Keep on pushing 1SBM !!

[steve2470]

185. I really don't think this was an innocent mistake by all those jurors and definitely not the alerter

The alerter had plenty of time to read 1SBM's post and see that it was a QUOTE of another post and not even in the subject line of his post. I have a problem with the N-word being in subject lines of posts and threads, but not so much in the body. I especially have no problem with the N-word when a PoC uses it to illustrate a point, as 1SBM did here.

The jurors ? I know from long experience here at DU that most jurors take enough time to read a post and understand it. I don't buy the theory that all those jurors were in so much of a hurry that they didn't understand what was going on, and that they simply hated the N-word so much that they were willing to hide it, even in the body of a post by a BLACK MAN. I know how many DU'ers feel about the N-word, from the infamous thread where it was spelled out in the subject line of the thread. About 50% of this community defended it, from my recollection, because the word was quoted by the OP.

The original horrible racist post was bad enough, and got MIRT'ed as it should have been, and this simply compounded the injury.

Your Mileage May Vary. I'm not open to debating this, so... there's the opinion of a white guy who's a staunch ally of the AA community.

Steve

eta: Congrats to the two jurors who didn't take the alerter's bait, and the one juror who typed an explanation was either horribly confused or has an absolutist stance about the N-word. The other four jurors.... I won't type what I'm thinking.

[passiveporcupine]

187. I don't see anything in TOS that says you cannot repost what someone esle

got a hide for, or was banned for. Especially, if, like this, you were trying to bring it up to make a point about it. I agree that your hide was wrong and hope Skinner takes it away.

Plus, it would be helpful if juries could undo their mistakes, like a case like this. I suspect (I hope) this was just an error from reading and judging too fast.

[Kalidurga]

188. That was a terrible hide. To say it was unjust seems to minimalize how terrible a hide it is.

I think bad hides should be up for review or there should be an appeal process. I have never had a hide myself I would send to appeal, but I have only had two. I am pretty sure I earned them even if I feel my post was misunderstood. I should have either A. used better words or B. made myself clearer. So whatever perhaps I was being a PITA. Anyway, the jury system can't possibly be fair when you can get up to 6 jurors that are supporting a different candidate and a couple to four are voting in bad faith.

My proposal is this. Not that we get rid of anonymity, but we have to declare our support on a check box or something and who we support is at least shown in the jury results. Perhaps that will give people enough reason to be more fair when they vote to hide or not hide.

[merkins]

189. K&R .. where's the response?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

193. What does that video have to with calling my friends the N-Word?

Thank you in advance.

[noiretextatique]

361. WTF...the troll was was banned.

I do not understand where you are coming from with this...truly. A random troll shows up, as they often do, and its posts were deleted and it was banned...Du did its job. Reposting the deleted post from a banned troll would accomplish what, exactly? NOTHING. It will not shed any light on anything because: the troll was a racist idiot. And no one is stopping anyone from posting a thread about the incident, if the goal is to educate. Instead, you chose to focus on defending an indefensible act. Why should this poster be allowed to repost racist crap, even if it is to educate? Would you support the right of a white racist to do the same? Really...if someome wanted to repost those comments to argue how correct they were, would you have a problem when THAT jury voting to remove the thread? So this is really about the supposed unfair jury system...ok. But this is a really piss poor example.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

363. Racism is like lice and exposure is the best delouser.

Please join us. We can use your voice.

[noiretextatique]

372. I cannot in this instance because nothing

Is stopping anyone from discussing the actual post, or whatever the copied post was trying to discuss. Here is my final word on this. Harping on petty issues, such as this, just cheapens the debate. And this is a really, really, really petty issue. He got a post hid...that is all. The reaction to a jury alert and a hide is ABSURD. This relatively petty event has been blown way out of proportion. Even if you think the jury was biased, is this really worth an OP to Skinner? Sorry...I do not respect what is going on here. I will be there for other battles though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

376. It is a part of a pattern to quiet certain voices.

It is a part of a pattern to quiet certain voices. Even Skinner has admitted there are problems with the jury system that he will address after the primary season. As I said in my seminal post when I quoted Dr. King "...we can't wait."

If folks don't like what Brave and 1SBM have to say, let them refute it, without racial invective, of course...


BTW, thanks for the civil tone. It's a rarity.

[noiretextatique]

385. where are these powerful and unfair alerts in this thread?

really...if this targeting is so prevalent, why hasn't it worked in this thread? where are the silencers here?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

386. Because this is a group forum and there is nothing to work with.

1StrongBlackMan is a righteous brother! We should all stand with him. I would walk through a wall for him.

If I had to entrust my life to three posters on this board it would be 1SBM, Bravenak, and #23.

They are like kin to me.

[bravenak]

388. You my BROTHER!!!!

[bravenak]

195. You came to the african american group to post THIS? That's 25 years old!!

We can decide how mad to be NOW over a 25 YEAR OLD video without your assistance. We saw it before YOU EVER DID.

[uponit7771]

198. So you're agreeing with the hide? tia

[etherealtruth]

210. I see what you did here ....

at first I was offended by what appeared to be insensitivity to the members of our AA Group .... then I realized this is "performance art" of sorts .... it highlights the theme of this thread : The insensitivity of some on DU related to the discussion of race and racism.

Inserting this post in this thread is a provocative way of pointing out how some dismiss the opinions and concerns of PoC .... it highlights narcissistic and dismissive attitudes toward the concerns of PoC on DU. It brings full circle the point that concerns about racism and racial insensitive are hijacked and (feebly) used to try to score political points.

well done!

[JustAnotherGen]

211. Disruptive -Not opinion. Off topic post

Please make sure you show this post when you get kudos from your buddies for getting blocked.

Video of HRC from like 20 years ago completely off topic.

This is not a differing opinion this is just shitting on people, a lack of respect and a strong desire to demean.

That written - you are blocked.

[nyabingi]

216. This video may be off-topic,

20 or so years old, etc., but what do you think about what she's saying?

I can understand the offensiveness of white people trying to tell us how we should feel about certain things, whether it's white Bernie supporters constantly reminding us of racism from Hillary, or Hillary supporters trying to convince us that she and her husband have always listened to our concerns - it all boils down to whites admitting that they see as brainless, political simpletons to be swayed one way of another based on what they're saying. I understand that, and I find it offensive and infuriating as much as anyone.

However, I don't think we should just let someone off the hook for something they said 20 years ago just because it was 20 years ago either. I would be interested to see how she would react today if asked to explain herself and why she said what she said. Has her thinking evolved or did she misspeak?

Maybe this is a discussion to be engaged at another time, but if there exists a link to such a conversation, I'd really like to get in on it.

[leftofcool]

227. Then take it to GDP. The video is not wanted here!

[Number23]

259. Your post has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand

If it's all too hard, you can just stay away from this thread.

[nyabingi]

300. I'll stay away. Thank you (nt)

[JustAnotherGen]

273. That's not the point of the OP

I rarely go this far but - Jesus Fucking Christ!

I don't have one fuck to give about that video on this thread!

And that should make the OP happy because that's not what this thread is about.

I'm not selfish, self centered and self absorbed to the point where I think my opinion about THAT video amounts to Jack shit in this thread!

I'm fucking bored with that video.

People have different opinions and ideas on things or none at all.

I have none at all and get off my back with this disruptive bull shit video.

Not everyone HAS to care! It's not my fucking issue.

Cancel my subscription! I've had enough of this tattered torn issue showing up at my front door.

Enough! I don't owe anyone anything.

Jesu Christo happy Wednesday!

[nyabingi]

298. OK sorry haha (nt)

[JustAnotherGen]

311. I went from Clark Griswold straight to cousin eddie!

[nyabingi]

360. Haha! (nt)

[leftofcool]

228. Take this shit to GDP!

[ismnotwasm]

194. K&R

[applegrove]

197. And DUERS for one candidate should not be bragging that they put 30

supporters of the other democratic candidate on block. And encouraging others to do the same. GOP wants to totally break up the Democratic Underground. Don't let them. Maybe the Administration should be ajudicating alerts from here on in until after the election?

[marble falls]

291. Where was this done?

[applegrove]

381. In the Bernie group forum. I was going to alert but could not because I am blocked.

[marble falls]

395. Give me the link. If its what you say, I'll alert.

[applegrove]

397. I can't even get into the bernie forum. It was yesterday at about 6PM. That is all I can

remember.

[marble falls]

398. We're all in this together and no matter whose candidate wins, we win. I'll have no problem voting..

for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. We have more common ground than conflict.

[applegrove]

403. Yes. So important that we all support whomever wins the nomination. Thanks.

[great white snark]

199. K&R please, please fix this. It's shameful.

Used to be my eyes only hurt from reading DU, but now it hurts my heart.

[monicaangela]

202. If the original poster

was PPRD, then shouldn't the identical comment that got that person PPRD be censored? Just asking the question, I guess I'm not as familiar with the rules as most people on this site are. It sounds to me as though the language was offensive and maybe should have been described in other terms by skinner but not repeated word for word, or copied and pasted. Does that make sense?

[SusanCalvin]

203. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

[Lorien]

205. I have no idea what the OP said

can anyone provide a synopsis?

[SusanCalvin]

209. I don't either,

But a hide for preserving the words of a racist jerk (since deleted) is ridiculous.

[1StrongBlackMan]

229. The poster told me ...

to stop whining ... he then, called me an annoying, narcissistic, self-absorbed n!@@3r. Then, he called me and Bravenak breathtaking in our arrogance and entitlement and suggested that get over ourselves and go back to Africa.

But it wasn't all bad ... he suggested that Bravenak and I just get a room, presummably, in Africa.

If I weren't married, I must confess, that wouldn't be an unappealing proposition! (But don't tell Bravenak)

[sheshe2]

235. Better yet~

Don't tell your wife!

Seriously here, I am so sorry for what was said to you and you got a hide for quoting it. You, 1SBM handled this with your usual grace and dignity.

[1StrongBlackMan]

236. LOL ...

My wife is like every Mom, everywhere, she knows everything!

[sheshe2]

238. Ha!

Well of course she does. We are all seeing and all knowing.

[SusanCalvin]

276. I'm angry you got a hide, but I'm glad you preserved it

as evidence that people like that do, unfortunately, still exist.

[1StrongBlackMan]

322. I'm disappointed at all the mental gymnatistic and apologia of DUers ...

offered/invented by DUers, attempting to defend the 5 jurors that voted to hide my preservation of that racist post ... a defense that, even, the 5 have not seen fit to offer up.

[betsuni]

346. +1

[noiretextatique]

357. You cannot do that...what part of that are you not grasping?

Whatever your motive, posting the deleted comments of banned trolls will get you a hide 99.9% of the time. You and others can continue to focus on the jury, but your post was inappropriate, not the hide. Your post should have been hidden. I doubt a theard discussing the incident would have been hidden.

[1StrongBlackMan]

369. Can't do what? ... Be disappointed in those defending the 5? ...

Well ... Yes I can, and Yes, I am.

You and others can continue to focus on the jury, but your post was inappropriate, not the hide. Your post should have been hidden. I doubt a theard discussing the incident would have been hidden.

No. My capturing of that racist post was not inappropriate ... except to those that would rather not see evidence of racism posted to DU, whether by a troll (that, BTW, there is no way of determining if the account is a sock puppet for a long term DUer, past or present) or anyone else.

I doubt a theard discussing the incident would have been hidden.

Frankly ... I don't care what you "doubt", especially given DUer's penchant to "Who", "What", "Post a Link" any attempt of a Black person to expose racist language.

I have been through the wide-eyed, "I have not seen it" turn into "Wow, I didn't know" routine, far too many times.

[noiretextatique]

387. i see: how can anyone dare question the great crusader?

bravely reposting the deleted threads of banned racists...for exposure. but constant thwarted in your attempts to expose by evil alerters who seek to silence strong Black voices. got it. y'all weren't doing to well in that thread, btw. you should thank that troll.

[1StrongBlackMan]

394. Time for your nap. Do you want your milk and cookies now, or when you get up? n/t

[MisterP]

213. can we have NYC_SKIP back, then?

[1StrongBlackMan]

230. I think you may have, briefly ... which started this whole mess. eom

[betsuni]

239. HEH

[lovemydog]

215. That hide against 1SB should be reversed.

Immediately.

[Tab]

221. I fully agree

I moderated many years ago, before this jury stuff, and we generally had to discuss it based on what we observed, the history, and so forth.

We're now on the jury system. I posted something a few days ago (when Obama and friends - whom I love - decided not to do a recess appointment. I made the mistake of entitling it "pussies", language I don't normally use, but the body of the post was fine and I was just trying to take our administration to task because I think (and recent news articles support) Obama should have the right to nominate whoever, and felt they were just rolling over, and that's a strategic move I know the Republicans wouldn't DARE give up if in the same position.

Surprise, it was hidden with jury comments like "over the top" and things like that. That's what comes from not having a larger perspective. I doubt most even read the damned thread, because it occurred after multiple followup posts that elaborated on the thinking behind it.

Over 10,000+ posts, I've had few - maybe not even a half dozen - reported on and hidden - but I've always been frustrated to not have been able to contest it - or, perhaps, a better solution - offer an explanation causing it to be reviewed either by the juries or the moderators. Instead I get the impression it's tossed out there, barely taken into context by most members, and then struck, and non-appealable.

I also know that DU frowns upon any criticism of the system, and honestly, I take some issue with that too. I know it can be a rat's nest when people have varying but passionate opinions, and it has to get managed, particularly for some non-appealable decisions, but we do need to talk about certain systems sometimes. I've had issues with the jury process for some years, and I don't think it really helps DU. It does alleviate the drag on moderators, but I'm not sure it's in a good way.

- Tab

[Starry Messenger]

225. Fucking egregious.

This place is such a toilet anymore.

[Arazi]

226. Hello Skinner?!

Bad hides are universal but this one is really bad

[noiretextatique]

237. juries are randomly selected

and copies of deleted posts from banned trolls are often deleted. i am not sure how the accusations made here could possibly work with a randomly selected group of people. you and others disagree with the alert, but...copied messages of banned trollls are often deleted. i fail to see the injustice here.

[betsuni]

241. Also, I've seen re-posted troll droppings plenty of times in the past.

I'm not imagining it. Trolls are usually so quickly removed by MIRT that few see their posts except for their targets. When it's clear the troll knows DU well and has been itching to say what they really think but can't as a regular member, it's good to re-post their words as evidence against the "I've never seen anyone say anything bad on DU" thing. Those jurors on 1SBM's post knew he was re-posting, they were out for a hide. Even the one that says 1SBM should be PPRD. At first I thought they were confused, now I don't. Why should they get the benefit of the doubt when it certainly isn't given in return.

[noiretextatique]

242. i was on mirt

and they were definitely watching that thread. mirt might have alerted. in other news, the OP actually self-deleted her original post in that thread, because it was complete bullshit. coincidentally, she also being relentlesslly stalked by bernie supporters

[betsuni]

243. Sorry, I don't know what thread you're referring to. Recently?

I was thinking over the years, long before Bernie was running for president.

[noiretextatique]

246. the thread in question

racist troll showed up in thread the OP mercifully self-deleted after getting her ass handed to her. see my point?

[betsuni]

245. Oh wait, you mean bravenak's thread. I get it. I didn't read that thread yet. (nt)

[noiretextatique]

247. yes..that part was omitted

the dishonest OP.

[noiretextatique]

244. i have zero respect for this tactic

the banned troll's comments were despicable, and they were deleted. they were deleted in a very dishonest thread started by someone who some have accused bernie supporters of stalking. her OP was so dishonest, she self-deleted before it was locked. 1sbm did not get to repost a banned trolls comments...so what? i am not moved by the conspriracy theory.

[noiretextatique]

248. this happened in an OP by bravenak claiming sanders thinks all blacks are poor

1sbm was not arguing against that absurd notion. the OP was actually self-deleted or it probably would have been locked. racist troll showed up and the situation got morphed into this. stop being suckers, DU.

[JI7]

249. what does it matter what the OP is about ? the issue here is the use of the N word towards 1sbm and

bravenak.

[noiretextatique]

252. the trolll was banned, the post was deleted

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 02:43 AM - Edit history (1)

that's happened to me several times...being called the n word here. i also had posts deleted when i copied banned posters posts. i don't think that means there is a vast racist conspriracy out to "silence" me. when your argument sucks, deflecting attention seems to work for some. and predictably everyone falls in line. i believe it is called manipulation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

294. I don't like my brother and sister being called the N-word by anyone and I'm white.

And everything I said in my seminal post while opinion was based on fact. I don't let advocacy for any candidate blind me from the truth and the truth is we are all in this together. As Dr. King said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I say this without rancor. It would be nice if you and those that think like you or similar to you can address the substance of my posts and not me.

As an aside, it is not only our African American friends who have been treated shabbily. I have private messages from my female friends on this board who have shared with me accounts of being spoken to in the most degrading and sexual ways imaginable.

[noiretextatique]

299. how do you plan to stop trolls from coming here and using the n word?

all you can do is to use the alert system...that happened, and it worked: the offensive post was deleted. but you cannot repost the rantings of a troll. i was on mirt...those posts are routinely deleted. as to conspriracies and stalking, that can easily go both ways. people sure as hell don't like pov...i just had two threads looked. should post a thread to skinner too?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

302. If somebody called you the N-word...

If somebody called you the N-word and you merely re-posted it verbatim to shine a necessary light on racism and your post was hidden which is a form of punishment I would certainly bring that injustice to Skinner's attention.

[noiretextatique]

305. if it is alerted on, which it was

it will get attention. and if it is reposted it might get alerted on again...that's just how it works. you can always start a thread about the incident. i have done that in the past. what is it that you hope Skinner will do?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

308. Rescind 1SBM's hide and place the same protections an accused person gets in a ...

what is it that you hope Skinner will do?

Rescind 1SBM's hide and place the same protections an accused person gets in an American court of law like peremptory challenges, voir dire, the right to confront your accuser, et cetera, here. In short, due process...

[noiretextatique]

312. honestly, that's kinda nuts

and you don't seem to be listening. 1sbm violated a rule...it is not okay to repost troll comments. you seem to want to change that rule...fine with me. but that is likely why his post was alerted on. i served on mirt, so i have some idea what i am talking about.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

314. How can you say due process is nuts?

We shout bloody murder when due process is violated in real life and rightfully so.

I understand this is Skinner's board and Skinner's rules and we must all abide by them, whether we like them or not. That being said, this is a progressive board and the respect for the "rule of law" is what separates us from the other side and I am calling on Skinner to live up to our highest principles.

[noiretextatique]

316. because: he's guilty

he reposted a banned troll's comments. as a result, his post was deleted. by all means, if you think there is some value in changing the system to allow banned trolls' comments to be posted, perhaps it is something you should take to skinner. personally, i think there was been way too energy expended on one random asshole.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

321. One can and should not be found guilty without due process...

We would raise Hell and rightfully so if someone was found guilty in real life without due process.


And it is not against the rules to re-post anything. That is a jury decision. And it's certainly not against the rules to re-post an obnoxious comment to shine a light on it.

If X said President Obama is a fill in the blank and I re-posted it and said that's messed up I shouldn't have my post hidden.

[noiretextatique]

325. You keep arguing around this reality

He is not the first, and probably not the last person to have a post hidden for reposting a banned trolls comments. Some people get away with it unless it is alerted on or MIRT sees it. Then...the post gets deleted. There is no right to due process, if YOU violate the rule. Perhaps people don't know you cannot do that, perhaps the rule needs to changed. But no...1stbm cannot break a rule, then claim he was victimized afterward. As I said...maybe these posts do need to be saved. How about getting the rule chaned first.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

332. There are virtually no firm rules on what can be hidden. It is a jury decision.

And since the jury pool is comprised of 85% of the supporters of one candidate the defendant is unlikely to get a fair hearing, regardless of the issue.


By the virtue of his being 1StrongBlackMan is the subject of unfair and unprovoked attacks here. I believe if you really thought about it, free from the restraints that come with partisanship, you would see it and stand by him, too.

[noiretextatique]

335. That's just not true. If it is egregious enough

MIRT can intervene. And you are wrong...posts quoting ba nned posters are deleted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

344. There are no firm rules...

Please point me to the rule that says you can't cite a recently banned poster to criticize him or her.


Also, was the poster banned at the same time ISMB cited him?

Thank you in advance.


1SBM has a big fat target on his back because he's superbad, like the gentleman in my avatar. Some folks like other folks to be quiescent, and 1SBM is not the retiring type. I hope at the end of our conversation you will see it and stand by him too...


1SBM is a righteous brother and we owe it to our best selves to stand by him.

[noiretextatique]

348. Because: he is not a "defendant"

This was not some indictment against him. He got an inappropriate post hidden...end of story. I cannot buy or support the narrative created around this minor incident.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

353. There was a complaint made against him in the form of an alert...

There was a complaint made against him in the form of an alert and his post was hidden in violation of fundamental fairness. I stand with my brother and friend during his time of trial and tribulation and urge you to do likewise, please.

Fair play for 1StrongBlackMan !!!

[OilemFirchen]

341. There is no such rule.

You're serving on MIRT and haven't read the TOS?

[noiretextatique]

358. Reposting the deleted posts of banned trolls

Will get you a hide 99.9% of the time. And yeah, the TOS do not allow for racist posts...even if you are posting the racist shit of someone else. Real simple, and it applies to the AA forum just like everyone else. Anything else?

[OilemFirchen]

371. That's a bullshit statistic.

I've never served on a jury involving a quote relating to and decrying or mocking an offensive post. I've also never, prior to yesterday, seen one hidden. Accordingly, I feel safe in stating that doing so will not result in a hide 99.9% of the time.

BTW, the racist post itself was quoted directly in this thread. The offending word was also posted. Neither of those posts were hidden (thankfully).

Anything else?

[noiretextatique]

391. well...it must be racism

there is no other possible explanation. except perhaps using this as a tactic because your argument sucks. but heavens no...this couldn't possibly be about politics.

[Agschmid]

250. What the hell was that!

Those jurors who voted hide should be banned immediately.

[Dawson Leery]

251. The old system worked much better.

[betsuni]

253. Hey! Look at what the alerter I was just on a jury for gave as reason for alert:

"I'm just going to alert on this poster every time it calls Bernie a parasite in hopes of getting a sympathetic jury."

2 - 5 leave it. Why is it that the very people who do things like this always deny that alert stalking is going on? What a silly question!

[sheshe2]

254. Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[noiretextatique]

255. juries are selected randomly

so that means every time the poster alerts, the randomally selected jury would have to be in on the conspiracy for the plot to work. do the odds of getting that jury increase the more you alert? or it just as likely that he might get random jurors?

[betsuni]

262. Everybody knows juries are selected randomly.

No need for a conspiracy. The alerter said "in hopes of."

[noiretextatique]

267. this OP claims there is a concerted effort to silence black DUers

but it would require a conspiracy, if true, one that is sort of difficult to manage with random jurors. unless you really beleive somehow sanders supporters have magically morphed a random jury system into a tool to terrorize black clinton supporters. yeah, he got a post deleted, one that he copied from a banned poster. i don't think it is allowed...for anyone. so, i cannot join the outrage brigade. i'm too logical.

[betsuni]

293. I am bereft our brief sweet romance on the other thread was cruelly ended by a locking.

Adieu, adieu, adieu.

[noiretextatique]

295. post a one-liner or a pic

those suit you.

[betsuni]

296. I thought we had something special! Ah! My sleeves are damp with salty tears....

[betsuni]

324. I'm too devastated to come up with a good one-liner,

but I think this lovely music expresses my heartbreak over our break-up. I'll miss you.

[noiretextatique]

326. Typical

And silly. No one coherent in this thread.

[betsuni]

330. Debussy! I thought we'd always have Debussy, noiretextatique!

[SusanLarson]

256. How to fix

All moderation votes should require an explanation without showing the user other moderator comments. Admin should also be required to metareview every jury decision. If a users moderation explanation doesn't match the situation in the reported post they should be suspended from juries for a period of time.

[Agnosticsherbet]

257. This is the most important post I've seen.

The jury system is inherantly biased. Decisions are not based on rules, but inherent ideological prejudices.

Skinner needs to act.

[noiretextatique]

260. riddle me this: how can a randomally selected jury be inherently baised?

because i don't understand that reasoning.

[Agnosticsherbet]

270. If 85% of your jury pool holds certgain belief, they are inherantly biased.

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

It is called the tyranny of the majority, where a majority rides roughshod over a minority.

[noiretextatique]

271. so...what is the inherent bias of DU juries?

are they inherenty racist?

[leftofcool]

274. Where in the hell did you read that?

Oh, you didn't. This is the AA Group and if you are here to stir things up, you might re-think that.

[noiretextatique]

301. take a moment from reactionary outrage, and read

the poster claimed random juries have inherent biases. i asked if racism was one of those inherent biases. and don't dare tell me what i, an actual black person, can post here. some of you have lost your damn minds. you do the same thing people here complain about.

[Agnosticsherbet]

317. We are discussing a jury system that biases the outcome in favore of the majority's narrow ideology.

I said nothing about racism, but by jumping to that accusation you appear to hope to stop any reasonable dialog about the way bias works in this system.

We are discussing a jury system based predominantly on the opinion of the majority. Rather than have a set of rules and a system that adjudicates problems based on those rules, we have a system where ideology is the arbiter.

You might consider entering this discussion with the intent to understand the grievances of the minority who have felt it's injustice to the greatest degree. This is difficult for a member of the majority, but with careful thought, it is possible.

[noiretextatique]

320. it was not a problem until now

and i still don't buy that argument. i think it is baffling that people assume others cannot judge a post fairly, just because they support sanders, or clinton for that matter. this entire thread in absurd, in fact. if you repost the rantings of a racist troll, for whatever reason, your post may be alerted on deleted. i suspect that is precisely what happened here. hell...it has happened to me.

[Agnosticsherbet]

365. I think when a majority, whether benign or malign or neither, controls a system

it will be riddled with bias.

It doesn't have to be racial bias.

[noiretextatique]

377. i agree it is a possibility

and it may be something people have to live with. because it is nothing more than accusation, and does nothing to help. the OP is a stretch, at best.

[OilemFirchen]

337. The inherent bias is against 1SBM.

You are welcome to guess why.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

297. The same way a randomly selected jury pool from the antebellum south...

260. riddle me this: how can a randomally selected jury be inherently baised?
because i don't understand that reasoning.

-noiretextatique

The same way a randomly selected jury pool from the antebellum and Jim Crow south could be biased.

The same way randomly selected jury pool of Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa could be biased.

The same way a randomly selected jury pool of Germans in the 1930s could be biased.

The same way a randomly selected jury pool of colonists in the 18th century could be biased.

Contaminants emanate from a polluted pool.

[noiretextatique]

303. so...every white person here is racist?

or a good portion? their have to be a substantial amount for your theory to work. and one more time: repostings of troll comments are often deleted, even if you are black.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

306. I would never suggest every white person here is racist.

I was pretty careful in identifying the problem in my seminal post in this thread so I will re-post it:

" I respectfully submit that the jury system is broken and when a jury is comprised of eighty five percent of the followers of one candidate, sitting in judgment of those whose candidate is supported by the other fifteen percent, or are undeclared, there are bound to be injustices..."

There isn't a conspiracy nor am I or any rational person suggesting there is one. What I and they are suggesting is that when a jury is comprised of 85% of jurors who think one way and that way is sympathetic to the plaintiff the defendant shouldn't expect a positive outcome.

That is why in real life we try to ensure defendants are judged by juries of their peers and not their nemeses or friends. In its absence tears are shed.

[noiretextatique]

310. so only the 85% who supporter sanders are racist? you may have a point

but i got two threads locked for not marching in lockstep. meanwhile this post has 200+ recs, over something that routinely happens to people who repost troll comments. fine...by all means let's change the rule. until then, if you repost a troll comment, it will probably get locked. i could almost understand this if the comment was made by a long-time DUer, instead of low-post random troll.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

313. Respectfully, that isn't what I am suggesting.

so only the 85% who supporter sanders are racist? you may have a point

Respectfully, that isn't what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the jury system is broken and when a jury is comprised of eighty five percent of the followers of one candidate, sitting in judgment of those whose candidate is supported by the other fifteen percent, or are undeclared, there are bound to be injustices, regardless of the issues being litigated.

i could almost understand this if the comment was made by a long-time DUer, instead of low-post random troll.

The purpose of this thread wasn't to shine on the light on a racist troll but to shine a light on the fact my friend and brother, 1SBM, was punished for shining a light on the racist troll.

[noiretextatique]

315. and i respectfully disagree

you are suggesting that 85% of the people here are too biased to be fair, and that there is some especial unfairness directed at you and other AA's? possible, but again: i call bullshit. and one more time: posts that copy banned lunatics rantings are often deleted. that thread was a complete crock anyway, but i would love too see bravenak claim bernie sanders thinks all black people are poor again. she didn't fare too well with that horseshit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

319. That is not what I am suggesting

I am suggesting when a jury is chosen from a pool where 85% of the people in it feel a certain way the defendant is unlikely to get a fair hearing, regardless of the issue.

It would be akin to a political corruption trial where 85% of the jurors were members of the opposite party of the defendant.

I will say this about Brave, everything she knows about the world doesn't come from a textbook, and that's a good thing.

Also, the stalking letter sent to her home where she lives with her small children and spouse was bound to earn her eternal enmity. As Sista Souljah said "two wrongs don't make a right, but they damn sure make us even."

[noiretextatique]

339. He is not a "defendant"...he's a poster

He is not on trial...his post was examined. If 85% of the posters on this board were Clinton supporters, would you have this same opinion?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

340. Of course I would... Fairness is a hill I would die on.

For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

-Mathew 7:2

[noiretextatique]

379. okay

a part of this narrative, a huge part, is that Sanders supporters are at the crux of this issue. apparently, unfairly targeting a few vocal AA's...who are all Clinton supporters, or sound like they are. you would not have a narrative if the board was 85% for Clinton because they would not be laying in wait, to pounce on your every post, or alert on you. as they do now, they'd cling to every pronouncement. i can only conclude that this is more about politics than race. but it does does produce big threads with lots of recs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

380. The race of the poster is ancillary. The candidate he or she supports is salient.

I should add some posters are bolder than others and it is the bolder posters who have attracted the gaze of the pro-alert crowd.

[noiretextatique]

389. perhaps it is the bullshit posters

the ones who claim they are not clinton supporters, but argue like they are. the same ones who seem to have the most problems here. the same ones who were targeted by the racist in that thread. and that was truly disgraceful.
but i can't help but note, they did not have winning arguments. this one. however, seems to work

[DemocratSinceBirth]

392. One of the posters

389. perhaps it is the bullshit posters
the ones who claim they are not clinton supporters, but argue like they are. the same ones who seem to have the most problems here. the same ones who were targeted by the racist in that thread. and that was truly disgraceful.
but i can't help but note, they did not have winning arguments. this one. however, seems to work

One of the posters you are alluding to is the embodiment of Martin's, Malcolm's and Muhammad Ali's hopes for their race. The fact you are standing against him and not beside him makes me sad. But I have not lost hope my witness will change your mind.

[JustAnotherGen]

414. You are the company you keep

Remember that. No need to respond to that poster anymore.

She has chosen her company.

I choose 1Strong for the company I keep. We are in the "same house" with others that have had the black American experience.

Good, bad, indifferent - I judge people by the company they keep and what type of show they put on. It's in my blood.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

421. I wanted to use my polite and gentle witness to persuade her.

I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

-Luke 15: 7

[sheshe2]

261. Kicking!

Thanks DSB!

[McCamy Taylor]

263. K&R

[betsuni]

264. Kick

[sheshe2]

265. Kicking!

[sheshe2]

266. Kick

[Skittles]

268. YOU PEOPLE

WTF

I've noticed that juries get it wrong WAY too often

[Cali_Democrat]

272. We need the moderating system back. nt

[steve2470]

277. I completely agree

The moderating system, with all its flaws and fighting, was so much better than this. Skinner can also give a final verdict on bad decisions of that panel.

[Renew Deal]

280. That's the truth

[noiretextatique]

307. reposted troll comments are often hidden

sorry...i don't see a racist conspriracy here. the hide was totally appropriate. i support a thread to discuss the comments, but really what's the point? they were made by an obvious troll who was banned, which was the appropriate action. you and others seem to think there should be an exception to the rule of deleting reposted troll comments. maybe that is a good idea. but it is not the rule now.

[lamp_shade]

309. IMO - The whole forum should be locked. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

399. Well ... Let me be of assistance. You won't have to worry about posting here, again.

You are hereon Blocked. Now, if you would be so kind as to complete the square by trashing this Group.

~ Signed,

1StrongBlackMack
Group Host

[1StrongBlackMan]

415. Message to the AA Group and DUer Lamp_shade ...

Yesterday, I misread the instant post to be a wish that the AA Group be locked. I, now, realize that I made that judgment in error. As such, and with my most humble apologies, I have reinstated DUer Lamp_shade's posting privilege in the AA Group.

Thank you, DUer Cha for bring my error to my attention.

[Cha]

417. You're Welcome, 1StrongBlackMan.. Thank you!

[1StrongBlackMan]

419. See ... It's really not that difficult to admit, and correct, an error. eom

[Cha]

420. I know, huh? I was thinking the same thing. We make a mistake, We own up to.. aplogize and

you learn from. It's the right way to do things.

Only way to go. Good morning.

[lamp_shade]

423. Thank you Cha for alerting Mr. 1SBM. You're always on your toes.

[Cha]

424. Not always but Thank you!

I know you better than that. And, 1Strong just didn't know who you were but he does now!

lamp_shade~

[lamp_shade]

425. Cha - you are awesome my friend. 400+ replies and somehow you spotted this one.

I am grateful.

[Cha]

426. Some names standout..

I'm always seeing yours Rec our threads.. So Thank you!

[1StrongBlackMan]

428. LOL ...

Some names standout..

Some for good; others, for "not this shit, again!"

[lamp_shade]

422. Thank you Mr. 1SBM. I should have said "GD-P forum". My bad.

[1StrongBlackMan]

427. No worries. All is good in the hood. eom.

[Spazito]

327. Well said!

The Community Moderation System is irrevocably broken, it does not work. This is but one example of that, imo.

[lunamagica]

338. Another kick

[snot]

343. Can we devise a fair appeal process?

[rbrnmw]

351. Thank you DSB for posting this

I stand with 1SBM and bravenak. Skinner please find a way to fix 1SBM's unjust hide.

[UtahLib]

382. Thank you, I strongly support your message.

There will always be those who will try to shut you down or shut you up if the message makes them uncomfortable. Sad to see it on DU.

[steve2470]

393. for you, DSB, since you are the OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599607

[mgmaggiemg]

401. I will up vote this ;)

[1StrongBlackMan]

404. Good People of DU ... Skinner has spoken ...

he sides with the hide and it is his site ... so it is what it is.

While I appreciate the support ... I'm done.

[Cha]

407. He sides with the hide? That's bizarre.. he recinded bravenak's when the same thing

happened to her. Why not do it again? It would set a most encouraging example.. that just because something is FUBARED.. doesn't mean it can't get unFUBARED.

I'm so sorry, 1StrongBlackMan

[Cha]

406. Thank you for doing this, DSB! I found this through a link in Hillary's Group. This is

so necessary!

That's was so unfair. What kind a of jury does that? They aren't able to tell a quoted message from a person actually saying something?

[Jamaal510]

408. I'm not holding my breath

for this to be fixed soon. But in the meantime, the admins will risk having less traffic and a less representative site of the party by just sitting on their hands and ignoring what's happening. Other good posters will eventually stop donating and will boycott the site, and it'll be all downhill. DU used to be a site I'd highly recommend just a few years ago, but the ship needs to be righted before it crashes. I'm now a little ashamed to admit to other people that I still post here sometimes. There should be no room for racists and people who are unsympathetic to concerns of racial inequality on here. I also agree with an earlier comment that this entire thread should be made as a sticky in this forum.

[Princess Turandot]

409. Contrary to the alerter's assertion and some comments herein, 1BSM *did not* repost a hidden post..

I didn't see this mentioned here. Forgive me if it was.

1StrongBlackMan's hidden post clearly shows that it was made in direct response to Response to Name removed (Reply #150). (As everyone must know by now, when someone is banned by MIRT, the name on their most recent activity is retro-changed to 'Name Removed'.)

The forum software does not allow direct responses to 'Name Removed/Message auto-removed' or 'Hidden by Jury' posts. There is no link for a reply in any of these types of hidden/removed posts on the forum. So, 1BSM could not have directly replied to that comment once the poster was banned and post #150 was zapped.

He posted it to maintain a record. People do that often enough here, for a variety of reasons. He had no obligation to go back and change his post after the poster was banned. It was a bad alert.

[betsuni]

410. Thank you! nt

[Cha]

413. Yes, Mahalo, Princess Turandot~

[Starry Messenger]

429. +1

[steve2470]

430. yep! nt

[Agschmid]

431. More than half the people on DU have no idea how it works...

And think we still have "mods".

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

432. This one was a gem...

The "hiders" couldn't even provide a good rationale for hiding the thread; they just wanted to go after us dumb knee-grows who don't know any better because some of us are not supporting Sanders:

On Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:03 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yessuh, massuh! Weee's knee-grows gon' vote fo Bernie cuz wees can't think fo ourselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1274286

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Again wow

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:07 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is clearly satire, and it makes the point. The OP started a racist theme and flame bait, why not expect a "stupid answer to a dumb question" as Mad Magazine used to say? I say leave it. If you hide this reply, you should also hide the original OP.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Offensive
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obviously no one understands sarcasm anymore, at least some don't. Quite possibly forgot the little "sarcasm" thingy. Leave it alone.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 1:07 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=219322&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.

IMPORTANT: Hidden posts remain on your Transparency Page for 90 days. If at any time your Transparency Page contains five or more hidden posts there are additional consequences: 1) your Transparency Page will be displayed and can be read by any logged-in member 2) you will be unable to post until there are fewer than five hidden posts remaining on your Transparency Page 3) if you are a forum or group Host and/or serving on the Malicious Intruder Removal Team (MIRT), you will lose those privileges